yfmvfjtttiftr^ 


§rom  ffle  &i6rar£  of 

(profeBBor  ^amuef  (JttifTer 

in  (Jttemorp  of 

3ubge  ^amuef  (gtiffer  (grec&inribge 

$re&enfeb  fit 

^amuef  (tttiffer  QBrecftinribge  feong 

fo  f 0e  fetfirarg  of 

(princeton  S^eofogicaf  ^eminarg 


**//y?79 


■* 


AN 


EXAMINATION 


OF    THE    ESSAYS 


BACCHUS  AND  ANTI-BACCHUS. 


PUBLISHED  ORIGINALLY  IN  THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW. 


BY  JOHN  MACLEAN, 

I-HOFESSOR  IN   the  college  of  new  jerset, 


PRINCETON: 

PRINTED    BY   JOHN   BOGART. 

1841. 


*    »     .  i %  *  V* 


BACCHUS  AND  ANTI-BACCHUS. 


1.  Bacchus.  An  Essay  on  the  Nature,  Causes,  Effects, 
and  Cure  of  Intemperance.  By  Ralph  Barnes  Grindrod. 
First  American,  from  the  third  English  edition,  edited  by- 
Charles  A.  Lee,  A.  M.,  M.  D.  New  York :  J.  &  H. 
G.  Langley.     pp.  512. 

2.  Anti-Bacchus.  Jin  Essay  on  the  Evils  connected  with 
the  use  of  Intoxicating  Drinks.  By  the  Rev.  B.  Parsons, 
of  Stroud,  Gloucestershire,  England.  Revised  and  amend- 
ed, with  an  Introduction,  by  the  Rev.  John  Marsh,  Cor. 
Secretary  of  the  American  Temperance  Union.  New 
York  :  Scofield  &  Voorhees.     pp.  360. 

These  Essays  owe  their  origin  to  an  offer  of  one  hundred 
sovereigns  as  a  premium  "for  the  best  Essay  on  the  Benefits 
of  Total  Abstinence  from  all  Intoxicating  Drinks." 

The  premium  was  awarded  to  Mr.  Grindrod,  yet  in  the 
opinion  of  one  of  the  three  adjudicators  Mr.  Parsons  was  en- 
titled to  that  distinction. 

The  comparative  merit  of  the  two  Essays  we  shall  not 
undertake  to  discuss,  as  our  purpose  is  merely  to  examine 
some  of  the  positions  assumed,  and  to  show  that  they  are 
utterly  untenable,  being  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  and 
the  testimony  of  antiquity.  So  far  as  the  object  of  these 
Essays  is  to  promote  temperance,  we  cordially  opprove  it ; 
and  we  only  regret  that  in  the  prosecution  of  an  object  so 
important,  and  so  benevolent,  the  authors  have  not  confined 
themselves  to  arguments  which  will  stand  the  most  rigid 
scrutiny. 


With  them  we  can  rejoice  in  the  triumphs  of  the  temper- 
ance cause,  in  our  own  and  other  lands ;  and  according  to 
our  ability,  we  will  cheerfully  unite  in  efforts  to  give  an  in- 
creased impulse  to  this  cause.     The  intelligence  respecting 
the  success  of  the  Rev.  T.  Mathew,  in  Ireland,  and  of  our 
much  esteemed  friend  the  Rev.  Robt.  Baird,  on  the  conti- 
nent of  Europe,  gives  us  unfeigned  pleasure.     We  could  in- 
deed wish  in  the  case  of  the  Catholics  in  Ireland,  there  had 
been  a  total  freedom  from  superstition,  as  well  as  total  ab- 
stinence  from   intoxicating  drinks :    and   we    indulge   the 
hope,  that  as  the  people  become  more  temperate,  they  will 
also  become  less  superstitious.     But,  while  we  make  this 
declaration  of  our  interest  in  the  temperance  cause,  we  must 
enter  our  protest  against  the  perversion  of  scripture  and  of 
fact  which  is  found  in  these  and  like  publications.     This 
perversion  constitutes  our  chief  objection  to  the  Essays  un- 
der review,  and  it  is  the  only  objection  which  could  have 
induced  us  to  notice  them.  Had  those  who  favour  the  views 
they  contain  contented  themselves    with  urging  the  expe- 
diency of  total  abstinence  from  all  intoxicating  drinks,  they 
would  have  met  with  no  opposition  from  us,  although  we 
might  differ  from  them  in  opinion,  on  some  points  pertaining 
to  the  question  of  expediency  itself.     But  when  they  invade 
the  sanctuary  of  God,  and  teach  for  doctrine  the  command- 
ments of  men ;  when  they  wrest  the  scriptures,  and  make 
them  speak  a  language  at  variance  with  the  truth ;  when 
they  assume  positions  opposed  to  the  precepts  of  Christ,  and 
to  the  peace  of  his  church ;    when,  in  reference  to  wine, 
which  the  Saviour  made  the  symbol  of  his  shed  blood,  in 
the  most  sacred  rite  of  his  holy  religion,  they  assert  that  it  is 
a  thing  condemned  of  God  and  injurious  to  men,  and  use 
the    language   of  the   Judaizing  teachers    in   the   ancient 


church,  « touch  not,  taste  not,  handle  not,"*  when  Christ  has 
commanded  all  his  disciples  to  drink  of  it  in  remembrance 
of  him,  we  cannot  consent  to  let  such  sentiments  pass  with- 
out somewhat  of  the  rebuke  which  they  so  richly  deserve. 
That  we  are  fully  warranted  in  making  these  remarks,  we 
expect  to  show  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  who  do  not  first  de- 
termine, what  the  Saviour  ought  to  have  done,  and  what 
the  scripture  must  teach,  and  then  seek  to  confirm  their  fan- 
cies by  an  examination  of  the  sacred  writings,  and  by  an  in- 
quiry into  the  conduct  of  the  Redeemer.  On  such  persons 
we  expect  to  make  no  impression.  They  reverse  all  the 
rules  that  ought  to  guide  us  in  our  inquiries  respecting  duty, 
and  pursue  a  course  most  directly  at  variance  with  that  of 
the  apostles,  who  always  refer  to  the  example  of  our  Sa- 
viour, not  as  being  in  conformity  to  what  is  proper  and  right ; 
but  as  being  in  itself  the  standard  of  true  excellence.  Did 
Christ  perform  any  act  ?  This  is  sufficient  evidence  that  the 
act  is  right.  We  are  not  at  liberty  first  to  decide  whether  a 
thing  is  right  or  wrong,  and  then,  in  accordance  with  that 
decision,  determine  what  Christ  either  did  or  did  not  do. 
And  yet  this  mode  of  reasoning  and  judging,  a  mode  to 
which  all  heretics  invariably  have  recourse,  is  the  very  one 
employed  by  the  writers  of  these  Essays,  and  other  distin- 
guished advocates  of  the  total  abstinence  scheme.  On  what 
principle  is  it  that  the  Universalist  rejects  the  doctrine  of  fu- 
ture punishment  ?  He  first  decides  that  it  is  inconsistent 
with  the  goodness  of  God,  and  he  then  infers  that  the  scrip- 
tures, which  are  from  God,  cannot  teach  any  such  doctrine, 

*  By  a  strange  misconception  of  the  design  of  the  sacred  writer  in  em- 
ploying these  expressions,  "  touch  not,"  "  taste  not,"  "  handle  not,"  they  are 
often  quoted  by  advocates  of  the  total  abstinence  scheme  as  if  they  were  divine 
precepts. 


and  that  they  are  to  be  understood  in  a  sense  different  from 
that  usually  put  upon  them.  Thus  with  the  Socinian,  he 
decides  that  the  doctrines  of  the  incarnation  and  of  the  atone- 
ment are  inconsistent  with  reason  and  justice,  and  he  then 
infers  that  the  scriptures  cannot  teach  these  doctrines. 

Thus  too  with  the  Encratites,  Aquarians,  and  other  here- 
tics in  the  second,  third,  and  fifth  centuries,  who  rejected 
the  use  of  wine,  in  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper :  the  Aqua- 
rians, substituting  water  for  wine  and  that  too  on  the  pre- 
text of  temperance.  They  appear  to  have  had  no  know- 
ledge of  the  wonderful  discovery  in  our  day,  that  our  Sa- 
viour did  not  use  wine,  but  merely  the  unfermented  juice  of 
the  grape,  mixed  with  water.  Following  in  their  steps,  our 
Authors,  and  some  of  their  worthy  co-adjutors  having  as- 
certained, as  they  suppose,  that  the  use  of  wine,  called  by 
them  "  fermented  wine,"  is  always  injurious,  that  it  is  de- 
structive to  the  morals,  and  the  lives  of  men,  and  that  it  is  im- 
possible for  God  to  approve  a  drink  so  vile  and  worthless, 
have  satisfied  themselves,  that  the  Saviour  never  used  it 
nor  provided  it  for  the  use  of  others ;  and  that  when  the 
scriptures  speak  of  his  making  and  drinking  wine,  they  must 
be  understood  as  referring  to  the  unfermented  juice  of  the 
grape. 

That  it  may  be  seen,  that  we  do  not  mis-represent  their 
views,  we  quote  the  following  passages — Bacchus,  p.  364  ; 
«  His  (i.  e.  man's)  tendency  to  estrangement  from  God  would 
certainly  notbe  lessened  by  even  moderate  indulgence  in  strong 
drink:  and  it  is  inconsistent  with  Divine  Goodness  to 
suppose  that  he  would  institute  festivals  commemorative  of 
his  own  glorious  power  and  benevolence,  which  would  offer 
anya  kind  of  temptation  to  his  fallible  creatures  to  deviate 
from  the  paths  of  rectitude  and  sobriety." 

Again,  p.  390:    "  Chemical  and  physiological  knowledge, 


therefore,  sufficiently  demonstrates  that  the  nature  of  fer- 
mented wines  is  such  as  to  render  them,  as  articles  of  diet, 
unwholesome  and  dangerous.  The  stronger  the  alcoholic 
properties  which  they  possess,  the  less  nutritious  matter  do 
they  contain.  In  other  words,  they  become  stimulants,  and 
not  nutritives.  In  regard  to  the  Scriptures  therefore, 
reference  must  be  made  to  wine  possessing  qualities  dissimi- 
lar to  those  under  consideration,  and  such  as  might  be  wor- 
thy op  divine  commendation.  Again,  p.  417  ;  It  CAN 
scarcely  be  sijpposed  that  this  object  (viz.  the  object  of  the 
Saviour's  mission,)  would  be  promoted  by  its  great  and  di- 
vine Author,  who  was  the  holiest  of  men,  partaking  and  sanc- 
tioning the  use  of  intoxicating  wine."  "  We  may  indeed 
rest  assured,  that  so  holy  a  being  as  the  son  of  God  would  not 
partake  of  any  thing  improper  in  itself,  or  calculated  to 
lead  his  followers  into  sin." 

Anti-Bacchus,  p.  267: "  In  examining  the  expressions, «  wine 
that  maketh  glad ;  or  that  cheereth  the  heart  of  man,'  we 
must  not  forget  that  they  were  spoken  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Now  God  the  Spirit  is  distinguished  for  truth,  knowledge, 
and  benevolence.  His  veracity  would  not  allow  him  to  af- 
firm that  a  fermented,  pernicious  drink,  which  actually  poi- 
oned  and  scorched  the  body,  and  corrupted  the  morals,  was 
a  drink  which  <  cheered  the  heart  of  man.'  And  his  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  physiology  of  our  frame,  and  his  benevo- 
lent regards  for  the  human  family  would  equally  prevent 
him  from  commending  what  is  baneful.  But  we  know  that 
all  intoxicating  drinks  are  pernicious,  and  therefore  the  wine 
spoken  of  in  the  text  in  question  was  not  an  alcoholic  li- 
quor." Other  passages  of  similar  import  might  be  quoted 
from  this  essay.  Would  that  such  sentiments  were  peculiar 
to  these  writers,  but  they  are  not :  they  have  been  avowed 
by  other  advocates  of  the  Total  Abstinence  Scheme,  and  by 


8 

individuals  too,  for  whom  we  entertain  great  personal  re- 
spect, and  among  them  Edward  C.  Delavan,  Esq.,  whose 
zeal  in  the  cause  of  Temperance  deserves  the  highest  com- 
mendation. In  a  letter  to  the  Editors  of  the  New  York  Ob- 
server, Mr.  Delavan  says:  "  Previous  to  my  tour  abroad,  I 
had  imbibed  the  strong  conviction  that  our  Saviour  never 
made  or  drank  intoxicating  wine.  I  am  ready  to  admit  that 
my  early  conclusions  on  this  point  were  founded  on  rea- 
sonings drawn  from  my  estimate  of  the  character  of  the  Sa- 
viour of  the  world,  as  the  best  and  most  benevolent  of  all 
beings,  having  at  heart  the  universal  interest  of  the  human 
family.  I  found  it  impossible  to  bring  my  mind  to  think 
that  he  would  make  and  use  a  beverage  which,  since  its  in- 
troduction, has  spread  such  an  amount  of  crime,  poverty,  and 
death,  through  this  fair  world.  He  came  to  save,  not  to  de- 
stroy, and  could  I  believe,  with  my  views  of  alcoholic  wine, 
that  he  would  make  or  use  it?" 

The  passages  above  cited  fully  sustain  our  assertion,  that 
their  authors  first  decide  what  it  was  proper  for  the  Saviour 
to  do,  and  for  the  scriptures  to  teach,  in  regard  to  the  use  of 
wine,  and  then  go  to  work  to  seek  for  evidence  in  support 
of  their  already  formed  opinions.  First  trust  to  their  own 
unaided  reason,  to  ascertain  what  is  right,  and  then  go  to 
the  scriptures  to  have  their  opinions  confirmed.  Are  these 
the  persons  most  likely  to  ascertain  the  truth?  even  if  they  can 
say  with  Mr.  Delavan,  "  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  sit  in  impar- 
tial judgment,  in  what  passes  on  my  own  mind,  the  desire 
that  truth  may  be  established  on  this,  as  on  every  other 
subject  of  Christian  morals,  is  paramount."  We  give  full 
credit  to  this  declaration,  and  we  believe  Mr.  Delavan  to  be 
perfectly  honest,  and  so  with  the  other  gentlemen  named,  but 
this  does  not  render  their  mode  of  inquiring  after  the  truth 
less  dangerous  or  less  censurable.     Would  it  not  have  been 


more  becoming  in  sincere  inquiries  after  the  truth,  to  seek 
first  what  the  Saviour  did,  and  from  his  practice  to  deter- 
mine, whether  it  was  proper  or  not  to  use  fermented  drinks 
of  any  quality  or  description,  diluted  with  water  or  pure  ? 
To  this  mode  of  investigating  scripture  truth,  we  do  totally 
object:  it  is  arrogant  and  dangerous  and  a  fruitful  source 
of  mischievous  error.*  The  result  of  their  investigations  is, 
what  might  have  been  expected  from  the  course  pursued,  a 
mixture  of  truth  and  error. 

Our  authors  searched  the  scriptures,  and  other  ancient 
writings,  not  to  discover  what  the  truth  was ;  for  this  they 
knew  already.  The  goodness  of  God,  the  holiness  of  the 
Redeemer,  and  the  nature  of  man,  furnished  conclusive  evi- 
dence to  their  minds  that  the  scriptures  do  not  sanction  even 
the  most  moderate  use  of  fermented  liquor.  All  they  want- 
ed, therefore,  was  to  find  evidence  that  would  satisfy  the 
minds  of  others  ;  and,  by  dint  of  false  criticism,  misstate- 
ment of  facts,  and  inconclusive  reasoning,  they  have  accu- 
mulated no  small  amount  of  testimony  in  favour  of  their  opin- 
ions. Our  authors  speak  freely,  and  we  do  the  same.  Their 
pretensions  to  extensive  learning,  and  thorough  research, 
are  certainly  not  slight.  This,  in  the  case  of  the  author 
of  Bacchus,  is  evident  from  the  wide  range  of  subjects  he 
has  discussed,  and  his  quotations  from  the  writings  of  the 
learned,  in  ancient  and  modern  times.  Criticisms  on  the  use 
of  Greek  and  Hebrew  terms,  with  occasional  reference  to 
the  corresponding  words  in  the  Arabic  and  Syriac,  abound. 
The  history  of  intemperance,  and  of  intoxicating  liquors,  in 

*  That  reason  has  a  proper  province  for  its  exercise,  in  all  enquiries  respect- 
ing duty,  we  without  hesitation  admit,  but  with  persons  who  receive  the  scrip- 
tures as  containing  the  revealed  will  of  God,  and  as  an  infallible  standard  of 
right  and  wrong,  the  office  of  reason  is  simply  to  ascertain  what,  they  teach :  and 
when  we  ascertain  this,  we  know  what  is  right, 
2 


10 

savage  and  civilized  lands,  is  given  in  more  or  less  detail. 
The  effects  of  intemperance  on  the  prosperity  of  nations, 
and  on  the  welfare  of  the  church,  are  brought  to  view.  The 
moral  and  physical  causes  of  intemperance  are  discussed; 
also,  the  diseases  and  other  evils  arising  from  the  free  use  of  in- 
toxicating drinks.  The  nature  and  combinations  of  alcohol, 
the  nature  of  fermentation,  and  the  adulteration  of  intoxicat- 
ing liquors,  are  examined  at  large  ;  also,  the  customs  of  the 
Hebrews,  and  of  the  primitive  Christians,  in  regard  to  the 
use  of  wine. 

In  examining  this  wide  range  of  subjects,  the  author  of 
Bacchus  has  certainly  collected  a  large  number  of  interesting 
facts,  the  perusal  of  which  will  amply  repay  one  for  the  time 
that  may  be  necessary  to  peruse  the  work  :  and  yet  it  might 
not  unfrequently  be  difficult  to  suggest  any  reason  why  they 
are  classed  under  one  head  rather  than  another.  The  claims 
of  the  author  of  Anti-Bacchus  to  attention,  are  thus  set  forth 
by  himself:  "  I  examined  every  text  of  scripture  in  which 
wine  is  mentioned:    I  inquired  very  minutely  into  the  laws 
of  fermentation ;  into  the  character  of  the  grapes  and  the 
wines,  and  the  drinking  usages  of  antiquity  :  the  result  of 
these  inquiries  was,  that  I  came  to  the  firm  conclusion  that 
few,  if  any,  of  the  wines  of  antiquity  were  acoholic.     I  ex- 
amined Homer,  Aristotle,  Polybius,  Horace,  Virgil,  Pliny, 
Columella,  Cato,  Palladius,  Varro,  Philo  Judaeus,  Juvenal, 
Plutarch,  and  others.     I  read  each  in  the  original  language, 
and  therefore  have  not  been  misled  by  any  interpreter  ;  and 
in  every  instance,  I  have  carefully  examined  the  context, 
that  I  might  not  give  an  unfair  representation  to  any  of  my 
authorities."     On  this  passage,  we  shall  at  the  present  sim- 
ply remark,  that  Mr.  Parsons  would  probably  have  made 
fewer  blunders  had  he  not  attempted  to  "  read  each  in  the 
original  language." 


11 

These  Essays  have  received  from  various  sources  the 
highest  commendation,  and  by  many  they  are  considered 
unanswerable.  They  are  "  to  produce  in  our  country  a  new 
era  in  the  cause  of  temperance,"  and  one  of  them  at  least  is 
regarded  by  the  American  Editor  of  Anti-Bacchus  as  the 
production  of  a  "giant  mind." 

It  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  rather  hazardous  to  en- 
counter giants  so  fully  harnessed  for  the  conflict  as  are  our 
authors ;  yet  we  shall  venture  on  the  execution  of  our  pur- 
pose. The  positions  which  we  intend  to  examine  are  the 
following : 

I.  That  for  the  most  part  the  ancient  wines  were  not  fer- 
mented. 

II.  That  a  strong  wine  could  not  be  produced  from  the 
grapes  of  Palestine. 

III.  That  the  Hebrew  term,  translated  in  our  English 
version  of  the  Bible  "  strong  drink,"  is  inaccurately  rendered, 
and  should  be  "  sweet  drink." 

IV.  That  wines  which  could  produce  intoxication  were 
not  allowed  to  be  used  at  any  of  the  Jewish  festivals. 

V.  That  the  law,  which  prohibited  the  use  of  leaven  at 
the  feast  of  the  Passover,  included  a  prohibition  of  all  fer- 
mented drinks. 

VI.  That,  as  our  Saviour  instituted  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  at  the  Passover,  he  could  not  have  used  the 
fermented  juice  of  the  grape. 

VII.  That  our  Saviour,  on  no  occasion,  used  fermented 
wine,  or  furnished  it  for  the  use  of  others. 

VIII.  That  it  is  an  offence  against  God  and  man  to  af- 
firm, that  the  scriptures  ever  speak  with  approbation  of  the 
use  of  fermented  wine. 

After  examining  these  several  positions,  we  shall  notice 


12 

sundry  criticisms  on  different  passages  and  terms  found  in 
the  sacred  writings. 

The  proposed  examination  we  shall  pursue  in  the  order 
mentioned,  beginning  with  the  position  No.  1  :  That  for 
the  most  part  the  ancient  wines  were  not  fermented. 

This  position  is  most  distinctly  assumed  by  Mr.  Parsons  : 
"We  have,"  says  Mr.  P.  Anti-Bacchus,  p.  206,  "the  most 
unquestionable  evidence,  that  the  wines  of  the  ancients  were 
thick  and  sweet,  or,  in  other  words,  were  sirups ;  but  you 
cannot  make  a  sirup    out  of  a  fermented  wine."     Again 
p.  207 :  "  And  hence  you  have  a  proof  equal  to  any  demon- 
stration of  Euclid,  that  if  the  ancient  wines  were  thick  and 
sweet,  they  were  hot  fermented."     Again,  p.  234:  "  In  a 
word,  from  science,  philosophy,  and  history,  I  have  demon- 
strated, that  a  large  proportion  of  the  wines  of  old  were  not 
produced  by  vinous  fermentation."     "  The  popular  wine 
of  the  ancients,  and  that  of  the  moderns,  are,  in  their  charac- 
ters, as  wide  apart  as  the  poles." — p.  234.     These  extracts 
clearly  indicate  the  views  of  the  author  of  Anti-Bacchus. 
It  is  but  justice  to  Mr.  Grindrod  to  remark  that  his  views 
on  this  point  do  not  accord  entirely  with  those  of  Mr.  Par- 
sons.    On  the  subject  of  ancient  wines,  Mr.  G.  observes, 
(Bacchus,  p.  200,)  "  Some  of  the  wines  of  the  ancients  were 
exceedingly  strong  ;  indeed,  among  the  sensual  part  of  the 
community,  the  celebrity  of  these  wines,  in  a  great  measure, 
depended  on  their  alcoholic  strength."      As  alcohol  is  the 
product  of  fermentation,  these  exceedingly  strong  wines 
must   have  been  fermented.     Mr.  Grindrod  does,  indeed, 
quote,  apparently  with  approbation,  the  following,  as  the 
remarks  of  Chaptal :    "  The  celebrated  ancient  wines,"  ob- 
serves Chaptal,  "  appear  in  general  to  have  rather  deserved 
the  name  of  sirups  or  extracts  than  wines.     They  must 
have  been  sweet  and  little  fermented.     Indeed  it  is  difficult 


13 

.o  suppose  how  they  could  contain  any  spirit  whatever,  or 
possess  in  consequence  any  intoxicating  properties." — Bac- 
chus, page  196.     These  are  not  the  words  of  Chaptal,  but  of 
he   writer  of  the  article  "Wine,"  in    Rees'  Cyclopaedia, 
who,  in  referring  to  an  observation  made  by  M.  Chaptal,  re- 
specting the  accounts  given  by  Aristotle,  Pliny,  and  Galen, 
of  the  wonderful  consistency  of  some  of  the  ancient  wines, 
applies  the  observation  to  "  the  celebrated  ancient  wines  in 
general."     Of  their  not  possessing  any  intoxicating  proper- 
ties, Chaptal  says  not  a  word ;  and,  in  quoting  the  language 
of  the  writer  in  the  Cyclopaedia,  Mr.  Grindrod  omits  the 
words  u  and  consequently  have  contained  a  very  small  pro- 
portion of  alcohol."   Mr.  Grindrod,  too,  in  copying  the  words 
of  the  writer  in  the  Cyclopaedia,  has  of  course  made  the  same 
mistake  ;  and  also  another,  which  is  his  own,  in  referring  to 
"Chaptal's  Elements  of  Chemistry"  instead  of  his  "Traite  sur 
les  Vins,"  as  authority  for  his  statement. — (See  Annales  de 
Chimie — T.  xxxv.  p.  245.     M.  Chaptal's  remark  we  shall 
have  occasion  to  notice  further  in  our  subsequent  discussions. 
Mr.  G.  and  M.  P.  both  inform  us,  (Bacchus,  p.  194;  Anti- 
Bacchus,  p.  237) :  that  "the  Egyptians,  at  an  early  period, 
made  use  of  must,  or  unfermented  wine  ;"  and,  in  proof  of 
it,  refer  to  the  dream  of  Pharaoh's  butler,  and  Mr.  G.  adds  are- 
mark  of  Dr.  Adam  Clarke's:  "From  this  we  find  that  wine  an- 
ciently was  the  mere  expressed  juice  of  the  grape,  without^/cr- 
mentation.  The  saky  or  cup  bearer  took  the  bunches,  pressed 
them  into  the  cup,  and  instantly  delivered  it  into  the  hands  of 
the  master."  Avery  philosophical  mode  of  reasoning  this,  to 
infer  a  general  custom  from  a  particular  instance,  and  that 
not  said  to  have  occurred  in  real  life,  but  in  the  visions  of 
the  butler  while  dreaming  !     We  think  it  perfectly  idle  to  in- 
fer any  thing  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  wine,  from 
the  accomit  given  by  the  butler  of  his  dream.     Why  not  in- 


14 

fer  from  Pharaoh's  dream  that  the  cows  m  Egypt  were  car- 
nivorous, for  it  is  said  that  "  the  lean  and  ill-favoured  kine 
did  eat  up  the  first  seven  fat  kine."  The  only  legitimate 
inferences  from  the  dream  of  the  butler,  so  far  as  the  customs 
of  the  ancient  Egyptians  are  concerned,  are:  1.  That  it  was 
the  office  of  the  butler  to  hand  to  the  king  the  cup  from 
which  he  drank  his  wine,  and:  2.  That  the  wine  drunk  by 
the  king  was  usually  the  product  of  the  vine.  In  confirma- 
tion however  of  his  remark,  Mr.  G.  adds  "this  wine  of  nature" 
is  called  by  Herodotus,  oivos  dprsXivos,  literally  "  wine  of  the 
vine"  and  he  refers  to  Lowth's  Isaiah,  vol.  ii.  ch.  v.  2,  as 
authority  for  the  statement.  M.  P.  makes  the  same  reference. 
It  is  true  that  it  may  be  inferred  from  the  words  of  Bishop 
Lowth,  that  the  "fresh  juice  pressed  from  the  grape,"  was 
called  by  Herodotus  oivos  dprs'Xivog,  and  if  he  meant  so  to 
say,  it  is  also  true  that  the  learned  Bishop  was  mistaken,  and 
that  Herodotus  employed  this  phrase,  oivos  dfjttfs'Xivos,  not  to  de- 
signate "  the  fresh  juice  of  the  grape,"  but  to  distinguish  it 
from  the  oivos  xgiQms,  the  wine  or  beer  made  from  barley, 
a  common  drink  among  the  ancient  Egyptians,  6'ivw  <5'  be  xgi- 
Asuv  ffSfl-oi-^viJ  Sta^iuvraf  ov  yag  fffpi  sitfi  sv  <rrj  yyt%r\  d/xirsXoi, 
"  they  use  a  wine  made  from  barley,  nor  have  they  vines  in 
the  country."  Herodotus  ii.  77.  Can  any  one  who  recol- 
lects the  accomit  given  by  Herodotus,  Book  ii.  60,  of  the 
yearly  feast  in  honour  of  Diana,  at  Bubastos,  believe  that  the 
oivos  cxfjwra'Xivos  was  the  fresh  juice  of  the  grape  and  unfer- 
mented?  For  the  disorderly  and  grossly  licentious  scenes 
witnessed  on  these  occasions,  Herodotus  accounts  by  saying, 
that  at  this  festival,  they  use  more  of  the  oivos  dfjws'Xivo?  than 
they  do  in  all  the  rest  of  the  year. 

In  support  of  the  position  that  the  ancient  wines  were  for 
the  most  part  not  fermented,  Mr.  P.  says,  p.  205 :  "  In 
Greece,  Rome  and  Palestine,  it  was  customary  to  boiJ  down 


15 

their  wine  into  a  kind  of  a  sirup.  Mr.  Buckingham  tells  us 
that  the  wines  of  Helbon,  and  the  wine  of  Lebanon,  men- 
tioned in  scripture,  and  which  exist  in  the  Holy  Land  at  this 
very  day,  are  boiled  wines,  and  consequently  are  thick, 
sweet,  and  sirupy.  Columella,  Pliny  and  other  Roman  wri- 
ters, tell  us,  that  in  Italy  and  Greece,  it  was  common  to  boil 
their  wines."  Again,  p.  265: «  The  chief  wines  mentioned  in 
scripture  are  those  of  Lebanon  and  Helbon,  and  these,  Mr. 
Buckingham  says,  are  the  principal  wines  of  Palestine  at  the 
present  day:  the  former, he  adds,  are  boiled  wines  made  of 
grapes  as  large  as  plums.  "  The  wine  of  Helbon,"  mention- 
ed by  Ezekiel,  Mr.  Buckingham  observes,  is  a  rich  sweet 
wine:  the  name  of  Helbon  signifies  "sweet  or  fat;"  this 
wine  was  made  at  Damascus,  was  exported,  was  a  part  of 
the  merchandize  of  Tyre,  and  in  the  time  of  Richard  III. 
was  brought  to  England  under  the  name  of  the  «  wine  of 
Tyre." 

Mr.  Grindrod  too  observes,  Bacchus,  p.  375,  that  "  Eze- 
kiel speaks  of  this  wine  in  his  magnificent  description  of  the 
merchandize  of  Tyre  :"  «  The  wine  (tirosh)  of  Helbon  is 
classed  with  other  nutritious  articles,  the  produce  of  Ju- 
dah  and  the  land  of  Israel.  .  .  .  The  "wine  of  Tyre"  was  ex- 
ported from  Palestine  into  this  country  so  late  as  the  reign 
of  Richard  III."  Of  wine  of  Lebanon,  Mr.  G.  thus  speaks,  p. 
374  :  «  The  wine  of  Lebanon  is  made  in  the  present  day,  ex- 
actly as  it  was  prepared  in  ancient  times.  The  juice  of  the 
grape  immediately  after  it  is  expressed,  is  boiled  down  to 
a  greater  or  less  consistence.  In  this  state  it  could  not  pos- 
sess alcoholic  qualities.  It  remained  the  healthful  juice  of 
the  grape,  deprived  only  of  its  watery  particles. 

Keraswstn  and  Mount  Libanus,  (or  Lebanon,)  states  a  mo- 
dern traveller,  produce  the  best  wines  in  Syria.  The  wines 
of  Syria  are  most  of  them  prepared  by  boiling  immediately 


16 

after  they  are  expressed  from  the  grape,  till  they  be  consi- 
derably reduced  in  quantity,  when  they  are  put  into  jars  or 
large  glass  bottles,  and  preserved  for  use." 

From  these  extracts  it  is  evident  that  our  authors  would 
have  us  believe  respecting  wines  of  Helbon  and  Lebanon, 
the  only  two  wines,  the  names  of  which  are  given  in  the 
scriptures, 

1st.  That  they  were  boiled  wines. 

2d.  That  they  were  unfermented. 

3d.  That  they  were  not  intoxicating. 

In  support  of  these  positions,  Mr.  Parsons  adduces  the  tes- 
timony of  Mr.  Buckingham.  As  to  the  sources  of  informa- 
tion enjoyed  by  Mr.  B.,  Mr.  Parsons  says  nothing,  and  from 
some  information  which  we  have  on  this  subject,  we  shall  have 
no  difficulty  in  showing  that  Mr.  B.  is  mistaken.  If  the  ex- 
tracts given  by  Mr.  Parsons  contain  all  that  is  said  on 
this  subject,  it  is  only  of  the  wines  of  Lebanon  Mr.  B.  speaks 
when  he  says  they  are  boiled.  Of  the  wine  of  Helbon  he 
says  merely  that  it  is  a  "  rich  sweet  wine."  Yet  Mr.  Par- 
sons says,  "  hence  it  is  evident  that  the  two  wines  most  es- 
teemed in  the  Holy  Land  were  boiled  wines,  were  thick  and 
sweet,  and  consequently  were  not  alcoholic."  But  granting 
they  were  boiled,  does  this  prove  that  they  were  not  allowed 
to  ferment  after  boiling.  Mr.  W.  G.  Brown,  the  autho- 
rity of  Mr.  Grindrod,  for  asserting  that  the  wines  of  Mount 
Lebanon  are  prepared  by  boiling,  says,  "  that  this  mode  of 
boiling  is  still  retained  in  some  parts  of  Provence,  where  it 
is  called  vin-cuit  or  cooked  wine,  but  there  the  method  is  to 
lodge  the  wine  in  a  large  room,  receiving  all  the  smoke 
arising  from  several  fires  on  the  ground  floors,  an  operation 
more  slow,  but  answering  the  same  purpose.  The  Spanish 
Vino  Tinto  or  Tent  is  prepared  in  the  same  way."  Bacchus, 
Note,  p.  374.      Now  this  very  Vino  Tinto  contains  more 


17 

than  13  per  cent  of  alcohol,  the  product  of  its  fermentation. 
See  Brande's  Table.     The   phrase    Vin  Cuit  ordinarily  de- 
notes a  wine,  "  which  has  had  a  boiling  before  fermentation, 
and  which  by  this  means  still  retains  its  native  sweetness." 
Rees' Cyclopaedia,  Article,  Wine.  We  say  ordinarily,  for  we 
find  that  Chaptal  speaks  of  the  sapa  and  defrutnm  and  even 
of  the  Passum  of  the  ancients  as  belonging  to  the  class  of 
Vins-Cuits.  See  Traite    sur  les  Vins.     Ch :  iii.     Annales 
de  Chimie,     T.  35,  p.  290.     There  is  a  species  of  Rhenish 
must,  a  very  intoxicating  drink,  which  is  first  boiled  and  then 
fermented.     See  Rees'  Cyclo.  Article  Rhenish  mnst.     Hen- 
derson, in  his  treatise  on  wines,  p.  189,  tells  us  that  in  pre- 
paring the  sweet  unnes  of  Spain,  the  must  is  often  boiled,  and 
that  by  this  operation  the  saccharine  matter  becomes  concen- 
ted,  and  the  proportion  of  alcohol  is  increased.     Is  alcohol 
obtained  without  fermentation  ? 

Chaptal,  ch.  iv.  4,  2,  says  :  "  When  the  must  is  very  wa- 
tery, the  fermentation  is  slow  and  difficult,  and  the  wine 
which  comes  from  it  is  weak  and  very  susceptible  of  decom- 
position.    In  this  case,  the  ancients  were  acquainted  with 
the  advantage  of  boiling  the   mnst.     By  this  means  they 
evaporated  the  superabundant  water,  and  brought  back  the 
liquid  to  a  suitable  degree  of  thickness.     This  method,  con- 
stantly advantageous  in  northern  countries,  and  in  general 
wherever  the  season  has  been  rainy,  is  yet  followed  in  our 
day.    Nevertheless,  this  process  is  useless  in  warm  countries ; 
at  the  most,  it  is  not  applicable  except  in  cases  when  the 
rainy  season  has  not  permitted  the  grape  to  come  to  a  suita- 
ble degree  of  maturity  ;   or  forsooth  when  the  vintage  has 
been  gathered  in  a  foggy  or  rainy  season." 

Grant,  then,  that  the  wines  of  Lebanon  are  boiled  wines ; 
does  it  follow  that  they  are  not  fermented,  when  it  is  a  fact 


18 

not  to  be  denied,  that  it  is  customary,  in  certain  cases,  to  boil 
the  must,  in  order  that  it  may  the  better  ferment,  and  that 
the  strength  and  sweet?iess  of  the  wine  may  be  increased  ? 
But,  further,  Mr.  Brown  does  not  say  that  the  wines  of 
Keraswan  and  Lebanon  are  not  fermented,  but  merely  that 
they  are  boiled ;  and  he  also  says,  that  they  are  prepared  in 
a  way  that  answers  the  same  purpose  as  the  mode  employ- 
ed in  preparing  the  vins-cuits,  or  cooked  wines  of  Provence, 
and  the  vino-tinto  of  Spain. 

Of  the  vins-cuits  of  Provence,  M.  Jullien,  in  his  "Topogra- 
phic de  tous  les  Vignobles,"  p.  273,  thus  speaks  :  "  These 
wines,  newly  made,  are  luscious, a  little  clammy, and  seize  up- 
on the  throat;  but  when  they  are  old,  they  become  delicate 
and  very  agreeable,  retaining  entirely  their  sweetness.  M. 
Grimod  de  la  Reyniere,  whose  judgment  is  of  great  weight 
in  this  matter,  gives  to  them'the  preference  over  the  luscious 
wines  (vins  de  liqueur)  of  Spain,  Italy,  and  Greece."  Again, 
p.  276,  speaking  of  these  same  vins  cuits  of  Provence,  he  re- 
marks :  "  Those  which  are  prepared  at  Aubagnes,  Cassis,  and 
Ciotat,  when  old  rank'among  the  vins  de  liqueur  of  the  second 
class."  They  are  not  in  general  as  much  esteemed  as  the  vins 
de  liqueur  of  Spain  ;  the  mode  of  preparing  which  is  thus  de- 
scribed by  Jullien,  p.  333 :  "  the  must  is  concentrated  by 
boiling,  and  acquires  the  consistency  of  a  sirup.  After  this, 
it  is  put  into  casks,  where  it  is  fermented  enough  to  acquire 
the  necessary  degree  of  spirituosity  ;  but  having  been  de- 
prived by  the  fire  of  a  large  portion  of  its  phlegm,  the  fer- 
mentation ceases  before  the  entire  dissolution  of  its  sugary 
parts.  These  wines  remain  sweet,  and  are  very  clammy 
during  the  first  years.  It  is  not  till  they  are  old  that  they 
become  delicate,  pleasant,  and  fragrant." 

Volney,  another  of  Mr.  Grindrod's  authorities,  says,  that 
"  the  wines  of  Lebanon  are  of  three  sorts,  the  red,  the  white, 


19 

and  the  yellow.  The  white,  which  are  the  most  rare,  are 
so  bitter  as  to  be  disagreeable ;  the  two  others,  on  the  con- 
trary, are  too  sweet  and  sugary.  This  arises  from  their  be- 
ing boiled,  which  makes  them  resemble  the  baked  wines  of 
Provence.  The  general  custom  of  the  country  is  to  reduce 
the  must  to  two-thirds  of  its  quantity.  It  is  improper  for 
common  drink  at  meals,  because  it  ferments  in  the  sto- 
mach. In  some  places,  however,  they  do  not  boil  the  red, 
which  then  acquires  a  quality  almost  equal  to  that  of  Bor- 
deaux. The  yellow  wine  is  much  esteemed  among  our 
merchants,  under  the  name  of  Golden  wine,  (vin  d'or,)  which 
has  been  given  to  it  from  its  colour." 

Here  observe  1.  that  the  must,  when  reduced  to  two- 
thirds,  is  improper  for  common  drink  at  meals  ;  therefore, 
when  thus  reduced,  it  must  be  designed  for  some  other 
purpose.     What  that  purpose  is  we  shall  show  presently. 

2.  The  reason  assigned  for  it  being  an  improper  drink, 
viz :  "  it  ferments  in  the  stomach ;"  and  yet  Mr.  Grind- 
rod    tells    us,    that  "  it  remained    in    fact   the    healthful 

juice  of  the  grape,  deprived  only  of  its  watery  particles."' 

3.  That  the  red  and  yellow  wines  reminded  Mr.  Vol- 
ney  of  the  baked  wines  of  Provence,  which  are  first 
boiled  and  then  fermented.  4.  That  the  red  wine  of  Le- 
banon, when  not  boiled,  acquired  a  quality  almost  equal 
to  that  of  Bordeaux,  a  fermented  liquor,  containing  about 
thirteen  per  cent,  of  alcohol.  5.  That  the  white  wines 
of  Lebanon  were  not  boiled. 

With  respect  to  the  vin  d'or,  mentioned  by  Mr.  Volney, 
M.  Jullien  says  expressly,  that  it  is  not  boiled :  "  Cependant 
le  plus  estime,  que  Ton  nomme  vin  d'or,  n'  est  pas  bouilli." 
p.  474. 

Mr.  John  Came,  in  his  «  Syria,  the  Holy  Land  and  Asia 
Minor  Illustrated,"  speaks  of  the  white  wines  of  Lebanon 

r.    feJ       . 


20 

as  distinguished  for  their  strength,  and  the  red  wines  as  the 
Champagne  of  the  East.  How  could  he  thus  describe  un- 
fermented  liquors  ? 

Mr.  Grindrod,  in  further  confirmation  of  his  statement  re- 
specting the  wines  of  Lebanon,  says  :  "  Two  travellers,*  of 
great  celebrity,  particularly  investigated  the  manners  and 
customs  of  the  modern  inhabitants  of  Judea,  and  record  that 
the  vines  of  Hermon  and  Lebanon  yield  wine  of  a  red  co- 
lour, very  generous  and  grateful,  and  so  light  as  not  to  affect 
the  head  though  taken  freely."  Wherein  does  this  account 
differ  from  the  account  of  the  red  wine  of  Lebanon,  by  Messrs. 
Volney  and  Carne,one  of  whom  compares  it  to  the  red  wine  of 
Bordeaux  ;  the  other,  to  the  red  wine  of  Champagne  ;  both 
light  wines;  both  fermented  wines  ;  and  although,  accord- 
ing to  Henderson,  p.  183,  "  the  quantity  of  alcohol  which 
the  finer  sorts  of  the  Bordeaux  wines  contain  is  inconsidera- 
ble," yet  that  quantity  has  been  found  by  analysis,  to  be 
not  less  than  thirteen  per  cent.  In  the  red  Champagne 
it  is  somewhat  less.  The  phrase  «  though  taken  freely"  is 
somewhat  ambiguous,  and  by  no  means  proves  the  wine  is 
not  an  intoxicating  one. 

Mr.  Parsons,  as  if  in  confirmation  of  his  own  and  of  Mr. 
Buckingham's  statements,  says :  "  M.  La  Roque,  in  his 
Itiner.  Syr.  and  Libanus,  remarks,  'It  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  find  any  other  wine  so  exceedingly  choice  as  that 
which  was  presented  to  us,  and  which  led  us  to  conclude 
that  the  reputation  of  the  wine  of  Lebanon  mentioned  by 
the  prophet  is  well  founded."  Is  there  any  intimation  in  these 
words  that  the  wine  of  Lebanon,  "  so  exceedingly  choice," 
was  the  "unfermented  juice  of  the  grape  ?"  Is  it  probable 
that  M.  La  Roque  would  speak  thus  of  the  boiled  wine  of 

*  Van  Egmont  and  Prof.  Hyraan. 


21 

Lebanon,  which  Volney  says  is  too  sweet  and  sugary  to  be 
pleasant  ?  Mr.  Parsons  does  not  give  the  name  of  this  wine. 
M.  La  Roque  says  that  the  best  is  called  Golden  wine,  vin 
d'or,  which  we  have  already  shown  is  not  a  boiled  wine. 

We  have  thus  far  confined  our  attention  almost  exclusively 
to  an  examination  of  the  authorities  cited  by  the  authors  of 
Bacchus  and  Anti-Bacchus,  and  have  shown  from  their  own 
witnesses,  that  the  wines  of  Lebanon  were  not  unfermented 
wines,  whether  boiled  or  not  boiled  before  fermentation, 
and  consequently,  that  they  contained  more  or  less  alcohol. 
Let  us  now  examine  the  authorities  adduced  in  support  of 
the  assertion,  that  the  wine  of  Helbon  was  unfermented.  We 
have  already  mentioned  the  fact,  that  even  Mr.  Buckingham,  in 
the  passages  cited  by  Mr.  Parsons,  does  not  say  of  this  wine, 
that  it  was  boiled.  It  is  only  of  the  wines  of  Lebanon  he 
makes  this  statement.  Of  the  wine  of  Helbon  he  says,  that 
"  it  is  a  rich  sweet  wine."  And  because  Nehemiah  says, 
"  eat  the  fat  and  drink  the  siveet,"  Mr.  P.  infers  that  this 
wine  too  must  have  been  a  boiled  wine,  and,  consequently, 
according  to  his  theory  respecting  wines,  not  containing  any 
alcohol. 

Mr.  Henderson,  p.  188,  speaking  of  the  Spanish  wines, 
says :  "  The  Spaniard,  when  he  drinks  wine  as  an  article  of 
luxury,  gives  the  preference  to  such  as  is  '  rich  and  sweet,'  " 
employing  the  very  terms  that  Mr.  B.  does  respecting  the 
wine  of  Helbon ;  and  he  instances,  among  the  favourite 
wines  of  the  Spaniard,  the  Malaga.  Shall  we,  therefore, 
infer  that  the  Malaga  is  an  unfermented  wine  ?  With  just 
as  much  reason  as  infer  that  the  wine  of  Helbon  is  an  unfer- 
mented wine.  The  Malaga  contains  upwards  of  seventeen 
per  cent,  of  alcohol,  and  we  have  no  evidence  as  yet  that  the 
wine  of  Helbon  contains  any  less. 

Mr.  Grindrod  observes  of  this  wine,  that  "  It  is  classed 


22 

with  other  nutritious  articles,  the  produce  of  Judah  and  the 
land  of  Israel."  But  what  has  this  to  do  in  determining  the 
question  whether  it  was  fermented  or  not ;  whether  it  was 
itself  nutritious  or  otherwise  ?  Judas  Iscariot  was  reckoned 
among  the  twelve  apostles,  but  this  does  not  prove  that  he 
was  either  a  good  man  or  a  true  disciple.  All  such  reason- 
ing is  idle.  Did  the  sacred  writer  profess  to  give  a  list  of 
nutritious  articles  of  diet,  the  circumstance  mentioned  by  Mr. 
G.  might  be  of  some  importance. 

In  this  very  description  of  the  articles  of  merchandize  of 
Tyre,  referred  to  by  Mr.  G.  the  prophet  says,  "  Javan,  Tubal, 
and  Meshech,  they  were  thy  merchants ;  they  traded  in  the 
persons  of  men  and  vessels  of  brass  in  thy  market."  Why 
not  infer  that  the  slave  trade  is  a  useful  and  honourable  em- 
ployment ?  for  this  trading  in  the  persons  of  men  is  just  as 
much  classed  with  the  wheat,  and  the  honey,  and  the  oil  of 
the  land  of  Israel,  as  is  the  wine  of  Helbon.  But  mto  such 
extravagance  will  men  run  in  order  to  carry  out  a  favourite 
hypothesis. 

Both  Mr.  Parsons  and  Mr.  Grindrod  mention  the  fact  that 
the  wine  of  Helbon  under  the  name  of  the  "wine  of  Tyre,"  was 
imported  into  England,  as  late  as  the  reign  of  Richard  III. 
but  this  determines  nothing  in  regard  to  the  character  of  this 
wine.  If  the  statement  of  Sir  John  Fortescue,  a  cotempo- 
rary  of  Richard  III.  that,  "  they  drink  no  water  except  when 
they  abstain  from  other  drinks,  by  way  of  penance,  and 
from  a  principal  of  devotion,"  given  in  Bacchus,  p.  42, 
be  correct,  there  is  very  little  reason  for  believing,  that  the 
English  at  that  time  would  be  pleased  with  wine  of  such  a 
description  as  Mr.  G.  imagines  the  wine  of  Helbon  was. 

Mr.  Grindrod  also  observes,  that  "Athenaeus,  upon  the 
authority  of  Posidonius,  states  that  the  Persians  planted  vine- 
yards at  Damascus,  on  purpose  to  prepare  this  celebrated 


23 

article  of  commerce.  The  kings  of  Persia  drank  no  other." 
Athenaeus,  Lib.  I.  Strabo,  Lib.  15.  «  This  fact,"  says  Mr. 
G.  "tends  to  show  that  sweet  and  thick  wines  were  held  in 
most  esteem  by  the  ancients,"  but  in  our  humble  judgment  it 
has  somewhat  of  a  different  tendency,  as  we  shall  at  once  show. 
And  first  compare  the  statement,  that  the  kings  of  Persia 
drank  no  other  wine,  with  the  anecdote  related  by  Mr.  G. 
of  Cambyses,  king  of  Persia,  and  son  of  Cyrus,  by  whom  Da- 
mascus was  subjected  to  the  Persian  sway.  Bacchus,  p. 
129  :  According  to  this  anecdote,  related  originally  by  Hero- 
dotus, Cambyses  was  a  monster  of  drunkenness  and  cruelty, 
and  as  such  is  referred  to  by  Mr.  G.  If  Cambyses  drank  no 
other  wine,  surely  the  wine  of  Helbon  must  have  been  a  very 
nutritive  article  !  Again,  if  the  kings  of  Persia  drank  no 
other  wine,  the  wine  of  Helbon  must  be  the  wine  called  in 
the  book  of  Esther  i.  7.  "royal  wine,"  and  in  the  use  of 
which  Ahasuerus  the  Persian  monarch  became  so  far  intoxi- 
cated, that  contrary  to  the  customs  of  the  country,  he  com- 
manded his  chamberlains  to  bring  Vashti  the  queen,  that  he 
might  exhibit  her  beauty  to  the  people  and  princes,  who  on 
occasion  of  a  great  feast,  made  for  them  by  the  king,  were 
drinking  of  the  royal  wine,  furnished  in  abundance  for  their 
entertainment.  The  phrase,  "  when  the  heart  of  the  king 
was  merry  with  wine,"  found  in  Esther  i.  10:  is  the 
same  as  that  used  in  reference  to  Nabal.  1  Samuel  xxv. 
36  :  "  and  Nabal's  heart  was  merry,  for  he  was  very  drunk- 
en," and  also  the  same  with  that  which  occurs  2  Samuel 
xiii.  28,  respecting  Ammon,  whom  Absolom  commanded  his 
servants  to  kill  when  he  should  be  so  far  overcome  with  wine 
as  to  be  incapable  of  resisting. 

From  the  statement  of  Mr.  Grindrod,  respecting  the  use 
of  this  wine  by  the  kings  of  Persia,  compared  with  the  ac- 
count in  the  book  of  Esther,  the  reader  may  perceive  how 


24 

very  harmless  this  wine  of  Helbon  was,  especially  when 
drunk  in  large  quantites.  We  have  now  examined  at  great 
length  all  the  authorities  cited  by  our  authors,  that  the  wines 
of  Helbon  and  Lebanon  were  not  fermented,  and  not  intoxi- 
cating, and  have  shown  that  they  have  failed  to  make  good 
their  assertions  in  regard  to  the  character  of  these  wines.  We 
shall  now  produce  such  testimony  as  will,  we  think,  set  this 
point  at  rest.  Upon  reading  the  statements  of  Messrs  P.  and 
G.,  we  addressed  a  note  to  the  Rev.  Eli  Smith,  of  the  Syrian 
Mission,  who  has  resided  in  Syria  for  a  number  of  years, 
and  who  is  perfectly  familiar  with  the  language  and  the  cus- 
toms of  the  country,  and  enquired  of  him  whether  the  wines 
in  common  use  in  Palestine,  were  fermented  and  produce  in 
toxication,  and  whether  the  wines  of  Lebanon  were  boiled. 
Mr.  Smith,  who  was  at  that  time  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
very  kindly  furnished  the  following  answer  to  the  inquiries, 
which  were  made  of  him.  We  give  the  letter  entire,  that 
there  may  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  views  of  Mr.  Smith. 

"  Kinder  hook,  Nov.  10,  1840. 

"  Dear  Sir — I  was  prevented  from  replying  to  your  note 
of  the  Gth  immediately,  by  being  called  to  leave  New  York 
the  day  it  was  received.  You  inquire  whether  the  wines 
in  common  use  in  Palestine,  and  particularly  the  wines  of 
Lebanon,  are  fermented,  and  produced  intoxication  ?  and, 
whether  the  wines  of  Lebanon  are  usually  boiled  ? 

"  The  wines  now  in  common  use  in  Palestine,  in  Mount 
Lebanon,  and  in  all  the  countries  around  the  Mediterranean 
that  I  have  been  in,  are  fermented,  and  do  produce  intoxi- 
cation. They  vary  in  strength,  but  are  on  an  average,  I 
am  confident,  (especially  the  wines  of  Lebanon,)  a  good  deal 
stronger  than  our  cider.  Of  their  strength,  compared  with  the 
wines  used  in  this  country,  my  knowledge  of  the  latter  is  too 


25 

slight  to  enable  me  to  judge  with  certainty.  The  wines  of 
Syria  are  stronger  than  those  I  have  tasted  farther  north,  in 
Georgia  and  Hungary.  Of  the  inebriating  effects  of  the 
wines  of  the  Mediterranean,  we  have  often  painful  evidence. 
On  first  going  to  Malta,  at  the  beginning  of  the  temperance 
reformation,  with  the  impression  I  had  received  here,  that 
there  was  no  danger  from  the  pure  wines  of  those  countries, 
I  fell  in  with  what  I  found  to  be  the  prevailing  custom,  and 
took  a  little  wine  with  my  dinners.  At  length  I  found  an 
intimate  friend  falling  into  habits  of  intoxication,  in  conse- 
quence of  habitually  using  the  common  Marsala  wine  of  Si- 
cily. I  then  gave  up  my  wine  ;  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  all 
my  brethren  abstain  from  the  habitual  use  of  it,  as  a  tem- 
perance measure.  In  preparing  a  Tract  on  Temperance,  for 
circulation  in  Syria,  we  have  included  wine  with  brandy 
as  one  of  the  causes  of  intemperance  to  be  avoided. 

"  In  doing  this,  we  make  no  distinction  between  brandied 
wines  and  those  which  are  not  brandied,  for  no  such  distinc- 
tion, so  far  as  I  am  informed,  is  thought  of  among  the  natives. 
Nor  do  we  make  any  exception  of  unfermented  wines.  I 
have  never  found  any  such  wines  now  used  in  those  coun- 
tries. I  recollect,  indeed,  that  in  travelling  through  Asia 
Minor,  I  frequently  quenched  my  thirst  with  an  infusion  of 
raisins.  But  it  was  never  called  sher&b,  the  name  given  in 
Turkish  to  wine,  but  iizum  suyd,  "  raisin  water."  Even  in 
the  house  of  the  chief  rabbi  of  the  Spanish  Jews  at  Hebron, 
I  was  once  treated  with  fermented  wine  during  the  feast 
of  unleavened  bread.  I  knew  it  was  fermented,  not  merely 
from  its  taste,  but  because  I  had  a  discussion  with  him  on 
the  inconsistency  of  having  it  in  his  house  at  a  time  when 
he  had  professedly  banished  every  thing  that  was  leavened. 
The  principal  word,  indeed,  in  Arabic,  for  wine,  khamr,  is 

derived  from  the  verb  khamar,  which  means  to  ferment. 
4 


26 

From  the  same  root  comes  also  khamireh,  the  word  for  leaven. 
"As  to  boiled  wines,  I  have  never  found  them  in  Mount 
Lebanon,  nor  in  any  of  the  countries  around.  The  unfer- 
mented  juice  of  the  grape,  is  indeed  boiled  down  to  a  thick 
sirup,  of  the  consistency  of  molasses,  or  thicker.  And  this,  I 
think,  is  the  principal  use  made  of  the  juice  of  the  grape, 
throughout  Syria  and  Palestine.  The  best  of  it  in  Mount 
Lebanon  is  even  made  so  thick  that  the  mountaineers  boast 
that  they  can  carry  it  a  day's  journey  on  a  piece  of  bread, 
without  its  running  off.  But  this  sirup  is  no  more  looked  up- 
on now  as  wine,  than  molasses  is  regarded  by  us  as  the  same 
thing  with  rum.  I  am  not  aware  that  it  is  ever  diluted  for 
drink. 

"You  will  perceive  that  I  am  no  apologist  for  wine  drink- 
ing, on  the  ground  that  the  present  wines  of  Palestine  are 
fermented.     These  wines  tend  to  intoxication,  and  therefore 
we  banish  even  them  from  our  tables,  though  they  are  the 
wines  of  Palestine.     Nor  do  I  wish  what  I  have  written  to 
be  regarded  as  in  any  way  aimed  against  the  principles  of 
the  Am.  Temp.  Union.     Indeed,  I  am  happy  to  find  that 
any  apparent  discrepancy  between  the  testimony  here  given, 
and  that  of  Mr.  Delavanin  his  letter  to  the  editors  of  the  New 
York  Observer,  of  August  24th,  so  far  as  facts  are  concern- 
ed, is  chiefly  if  not  entirely  verbal.     He  testifies  that  the  un- 
fermented  juice  of  the  grape  can  be  preserved  from  fermen- 
tation by  boiling.     My  testimony  goes  farther,  and  proves 
not  only  that  it  can  be,  but  is  in  fact  thus  preserved  to  a 
great  extent.      The  difference  is,  that  he  calls  this  sirup 
wine  ;  I  have  not  found  it  bearing  the  name,  nor  used  in 
the  place  of  wine.     Of  his  opinion,  that  it  was  anciently  re- 
garded and  used  as  wine,  and  is  the  wine  approved  of  in  the 
Bible,  but  has  gone  into  disuse  in  consequence  of  an  in- 
creased taste  for  alcoholic  drinks,  a  person  who  has  never 


27 

been  in  Palestine,  is  perhaps  as  capable  of  judging  as  myself. 
This  point  is  not  included  in  the  questions  your  letter  propo- 
ses, and  I  leave  it  untouched.  You  will  not  therefore  con- 
sider my  letter  as  containing  any  opinion  respecting  the  na- 
ture of  the  wines  used  and  approved  by  our  Saviour  and  the 
writers  of  the  scriptures.  That  discussion  is  one  in  which  I 
wish  not  to  take  any  part. 

"  With  much  respect,  I  remain, 

"  Most  truly  yours, 

«  Eli  Smith." 
From  this  letter,  it  is  evident — 

1.  That  the  wines  now  in  common  use  in  Palestine  and 
in  Mount  Lebanon  are  fermented,  and  do  produce  intoxi- 
cation. 

2.  That  the  wines  of  Syria  are  stronger  than  those  farther 
north,  in  Georgia  and  Hungary. 

3.  That  in  Asia  Minor  it  is  common  to  use  as  a  drink 
"  an  infusion  of  raisins,"  but  that  this  is  never  denominated 
wine,  but  "  raisin  water." 

4.  That  boiled  wines,  as  distinguished  from  fermented 
wines,  are  scarcely  if  at  all  known  in  Palestine.  Whether 
the  wines  were  boiled  before  fermenting  was  not  a  matter 
included  in  our  inquiries,  nor  is  it  included  in  the  answers  of 
Mr.  Smith. 

5.  That  the  unfermented  juice  of  the  grape  is  frequently 
boiled  until  it  acquires  the  consistence  of  molasses,  or  until 
it  becomes  even  thicker  than  molasses;  but  this  sirup  is  no 
more  looked  upon  as  wine  than  molasses  with  us  is  consi- 
dered the  same  thing  as  rum;  and  that  this  sirup  is  not  diluted 
for  drink,  but  is  eaten  with  bread. 

Mr.  Volney,  as  we  have  seen,  says,  it  is  unfit  for  common 
drink  at  meals,  but  he  does  not  mention  for  what  purpose  it 
is  used.    From  Mr.  Smith's  letter  it  appears,  that  it  is  used 


28 

in  Palestine  in  the  same  way  that  in  this  country  we  use  mo- 
lasses or  honey ;  and,  in  fact,  it  is  the  very  substance  called 
in  the  English  version  of  the  Bible,  "  honey"  as  in  Ezekiel 
xxvii.  17.  In  this  verse,  it  is  spoken  of  as  a  part  of  the  mer- 
chandise of  Tyre,  and  as  something  distinct  from  the  new  wine 
(tirosh)  of  Helbon  mentioned  in  the  succeeding  verse.  It  is 
not  improbable,  that  in  rainy  seasons,  when  the  grape  did 
not  contain  its  usual  quantity  of  saccharine  matter,  that  they 
mixed  with  the  juice  of  the  grape,  before  it  was  fermented,  a 
small  quantity  of  this  boiled  must,  in  order  to  give  the  wine 
greater  strength  and  sweetness,  as  in  common  in  other  wine 
countries.     See  Henderson  and  Chaptal. 

If  it  be  true,  as  the  author  of  Bacchus  says,  and  we  do  not 
question  its  truth,  that  "  the  wine  of  Lebanon  is  made  in  the 
present  day  exactly  as  it  ;was  prepared  in  ancient  times," 
then  it  is  abundantly  evident  that  the  ancient  wine  of  Leba- 
non was  a  fermented  and  an  intoxicating  drink. 

There  are  one  or  two  points  in  Mr.  Smith's  letter,  which 
we  shall  notice  under  another  head.  Let  us  now  examine 
the  witnesses  of  our  authors,  in  relation  to  the  ancient  wines 
of  Greece  and  Italy. 

«  Columella,  Pliny,  and  other  Roman  writers,"  says  Mr, 
Parsons,  "tell  us  that  it  was  common  to  boil  their  wines. 
The  sapa  and  defrutum  of  the  Latins,  and  the  "E^^a  and 
Si'^aiov  of  the  Greeks,  which  Pliny  calls  '  siraeum  and  hep- 
sema,'  and  adds  that  they  answered  to  the  sapa  and  defrutum 
of  the  Latins,  were  boiled  wines.  In  making  the  l  sapa' 
the  juice  was  boiled  to  one  half,  and  in  defrutum  to  one 
third." 

But  is  this  all  that  Pliny  says  about  them  ?  His  very 
next  words,  indicating  for  what  purpose  they  were  chiefly 
prepared,  are  not  even  noticed  by  our  author,  notwithstand- 
ing "  in  every  instance  he  carefully  examined  the  context, 


29 

that  he  might  not  give  an  unfair  representation  to  any  of  his 
authorities."  The  words  immediately  following  the  above 
passage  are  these  :  "  Omnia  in  adult erium  mellis  excogi- 
tata,"  showing  clearly  that  for  certain  purposes  at  least  they 
were  expressly  designed  to  supply  the  place  of  honey.  Pliny, 
ch.  vi.  in  treating  of  the  famous  Maronean  wine,  a  pro- 
duct of  Thrace,  had  previously  mentioned  that  Aristaeus 
was  the  first  person  in  Thrace,  who  taught  the  mixing  of 
honey  with  wine.  And  how  any  one  who  has  read  Pliny, 
Columella,  Varro  and  Cato,  and  that  too  without  being 
"  misled  by  any  translator,"  should  overlook  the  fact,  that  the 
principal  use  of  these  preparations  was  to  sweeten  and  to 
increase  the  strength  of  weak  wines,  we  are  utterly  at  a  loss  to 
understand.  Mr.  Parsons  does  not  give  the  least  intimation 
that  they  were  used  for  this  purpose.  That  in  some  Lai ; 
thors  we  find  allusions  to  the  use  of  sapa  and  defrutum,  -3 
drinks,  by  the  old  women  of  Rome,  we  do  not  deny;  jvt 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  sapa  and  defrutum  "./ire 
ordinary  drinks  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans. 

Although  Pliny,  in  treating  of  the  different  sot':z  of  wine, 
makes  mention  of  sapa  and  defrutum,  also  pi 
the  vine,  yet  he  most  clearly  distinguishes  them  fror  1 
properly  so  called,  and  classes  them  among  the  dulcia.  He 
also  distinguishes  both  classes  from  the  usr/'hemos  of  the 
Greeks.  "  Intermediate  between  the  dulcia  and  vinum 
(wine)  is  what  the  Greeks  call  aigleucos,  that  is  always 
?:ntst.  It  is  the  result  of  care,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  sufferer1. 
So  ferment :  thus  they  call  the  passage  of  must  into  wine/* 

What  words  can  show  more  clearly  that  Pliny  understoc  1 
by  wine  something  different  from  the  mere  unfermented  juice 

*  "  Medium  inter  dulcia  vinumquc  est,  quod  Graeci  aigleucos  vocant,  hoc  est, 
semper  mustum,"  and  adds,  "  Id  evenit  cura,  quoniam  fervere  prohibetur,  sic 
f  ppellant  mutti  in  vina  transitum." 


30 

of  the  grape,  whether  boiled  or  not  boiled.*  Again  in  book 
xxiii.  c.  30.  "  Sapa  is  a  thing  allied  to  wine,  the  must  hav- 
ing been  boiled,  until  a  third  part  remains."!  The  same  dis- 
tinction between  dulcia  and  vina  occurs,  Book  xiv.  15.J 
"  From  which  it  appears  that  murrhina,"  a  drink  flavoured 
with  myrrh,  "is  classed  not  only  with  wines  but  also  with 
the  dulcia.'''' 

In  Book,  xiv.  c.  24,  Pliny  treats  of  the  different  condi- 
ments used  in  the  preparation  of  Avine :  "  And  also  from 
must  itself  medicaments  are  made,  it  is  boiled  in  order  that 
it  may  wax  sweet  by  a  portion  of  its  strength.  In  some 
r'aces  they  boil  the  must  to  sapa,  and  having  poured  it  into 
Yfce  wine,  they  allay  its  harshness.  § 

*  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  such  of  our  total  abstinence  friends  as  object  to  the 
use  of  wine  because  "  it  is  not  eliminated  from  any  living  or  natural  process," 
but  a  liquor  prepared  by  "  interfering  with  the  operations  of  nature,"  see  Bac- 
chus, p.  241,  or  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Parsons,  because,  "  no  where  in  nature  is 
alcohol  produced  by  the  hand  of  God,"  Anti-Bacchus,  p.  265,  will  never  say 
another  word  in  favour  of  drinking  "aigleucos,"  the  ahvays  must,  since  must  is 
first  obtained  by  subjecting  the  grapes  to  a  very  unnatural  pressure,  and  then 
oh !  horrible  to  mention,  to  prevent  its  turning  to  wine  or  to  vinegar,  "  the  opera- 
tions of  nature  are  interfered  with  !"  "Id  evenit  cura,  aflomaxafervere  prohi" 
betur,"  and  this  is  said  too  by  Pliny,  a  favourite  authority  with  Mr.  Parsons.  Of 
sapa  too  Pliny  says,  "  ingenii  non  naturae  est  opus."  '  It  is  the  work  of  art  not  of 
nature.'  Why  not  object  also  to  the  use  of  bread?  It  may  be  said  of  bread  ar, 
of  wine,  and  with  the  same  propriety,  "  it  is  not  eliminated  from  any  living  or, 
ratural  process."  "  No  where  in  nature  is  it  produced  by  the  hand  of  God." 
But  does  this  prove  that  they  are  neither  of  them  gifts  of  God  ]  If  the  argu- 
ment is  good  for  any  thing,  it  amounts  to  this,  and  proves  the  same  thing  cf 
bread,  that  it  does  of  wine. 

J{  "  Vino  cognata  res  sapa  est,  musto  decocto  donee  tertia  pars  supersit." 

\  "Quibus  apparet  non  inter  modo  vina  murrhinam,  sed  inter  dulcia  quoqno 
nominatum  . 

§  "  Verum  et  de  apparatu  vini  dixisse  conveniat,"  and  among  other  things  he 
..  „ys,  "  J\"ecnon  et  ex  ipso  musto  fiunt  medicamina :  decoquitur,  ut  dulcescat 

portione  virium Aliquibus  in  locis  decoquunt  ad  sapas  musta,  infu- 

y,'t/ur  hi*  ferociam  frangunt." 


31 

"Cato,"  says  Pliny,  "directs  wines  to  be  prepared  with 
the  fortieth  part  of  the  lye  of  ashes  boiled  with  defrutum, 
for  a  culeus,"*  a  Roman  measure  containing  about  one  hun- 
dred and  forty  gallons.  The  two  passages  last  quoted  show 
what  use  was  made  by  the  ancient  Romans  of  sapa  and  de- 
frutum as  condiments  for  their  wines. 

Columella,  another  writer  mentioned  by  Mr.  Parsons, 
treats  of  the  preparing  of  defrutum,  and  of  its  uses,  more  at 
large  than  Pliny.  See  Book  xii.  cc.  19, 20,  21.  "  Some  boil 
away  a  fourth  and  some  a  third  of  the  must,  nor  does  it  ad- 
mit of  a  doubt,  that  should  one  reduce  it  to  a  half  he  would 
make  the  better  sapa,  and  on  that  account  more  fit  for  use, 
so  that  must  from  old  vineyards  may  be  cured  with  sapa  in- 
stead of  defrutum ."t  "Although  carefully  made  defrutum 
like  wine  is  wont  to  become  sour,  we  should  therefore 
recollect  to  season  wine  with  defrutum  of  a  year  old,  whose 
good  quality  has  been  ascertained."  c.  20.J 

Then,  after  giving  some  directions  as  to  the  mode  of  prepa- 
ring the  defrutum,  he  says,  "  of  this  defrutum,  thus  boiled,  a 
single  sextarius  is  sufficient  for  a  single  amphora."  c.  20.§ 

Ch.  xxi :  "  Let  must  of  the  sweetest  taste  be  reduced  by 
boiling,  to  the  third  part,  and  when  boiled,  it  is  called,  as  I 
said  above,  defrutum,  which,  when  it  has  become  cool,  is 

f  "Cato  jubet  vina  concinnari,  cineris  lixivii  cum  defruto  cocti  part.; 
quadragesima,  in  culeum." 

f  "  Quidam  partem  quartam  ejus  musti,  quod  in  vasa  plumbea  conjicerunt, 
nonnulli  tertiam  decoquunt,  nee  dubium,  quin  ad  dimidium  si  quis  excoxerit, 
meliorem  sapam  facturus  sit,  eoque  usibus  utiliorem,  adeo  quidem,  ut  etiam  vice 
defruti  sapa  mustum,  quod  est  ex  veteribus  vineis,  condire  possit."  c.  19. 

+  "  Quinetiam  diligenter  factum  defrutum,  sicut  vinum,  solet  acescere ;  quod 
cum  ita  sit,  meminerimus  anniculo  defruto,  cujus  jam  bonitas  explorata  est  vi- 
num condire." 

§  "  Ex  hoc  defruto,  quod  sic  erit  coctum,  satis  est  singulos  eextarios  singula 
amphoris  immiscere." 


32 

transferred  into  vessels,  and  set  aside,  that  it  may  be  used  -et 
the  end  of  a  year.  It  can,  however,  in  nine  days  after  it  has 
ccoled  be  put  into  wine,  yet  it  is  better  not  to  be  used  for  a 
year.  One  sextarius  is  sufficient  for  two  urnae  of  must,  if 
the  must  be  from  vineyards  on  a  hill,  but  if  from  vineyards 
in  the  plain,  three  heminae  must  be  added.  When  the  must 
is  taken  from  the  vat,  we  suffer  it  to  cool  for  two  days,  and 
to  become  clear ;  and,  on  the  third  day,  we  add  the  defru- 
tum."* 

These  extracts  show  most  clearly  that  the  principal  use  of 
sapa  and  defrutum  was  to  improve  the  quality  of  weak 
wines.  For  additional  evidence,  see  Cato,  chap,  cxiii.  and 
Palladins,  chap.  xi.  14  ;  also,  the  rswrovixa,  edited  by  Need- 
ham,  Lib.  vii.  13,  page  17S  :  "  Some,  boiling  the  must  and 
reducing  it  to  a  third,  mix  it  with  the  wine  ;"  <nvk  cis  y\svxos 
l-^oCwss  xa<  aro-^iTojvTsc;,  p.iyvuWi  <rw  o'/vw.  This  mode  of  improving 
them  is  practised  at  this  day.  See  Chaptal's  "  Traite  sur  les 
Vins,"  ch.  iv.  art.  3.— "Annales  de  Chimie,"  T.  36,  p.  43.t 
In  strong  and  sound  wines,  in  which  the  saccharine  matter 
was  sufficient  to  preserve  the  wines  in  a  perfect  state,  the 
capa  and  defrutum  were  not  used.     "  We  regard  that  as  the 

*  "  Mustum  quam  dulcissirni  saporis  decoquatur  ad  tertias,  et  decoctum,  sicut 
supra  dixi,  defrutum  vocatur.  Quod  cum  defrixit,  transfertur  in  vasa  et  reponi- 
tur,ut  post  annum  sit  in  usu.  .  Potest  tamen  etiam  post  dies  novem,  quam  re- 
frixcrit,  adjici  in  vinum;  sed  melius  est,  si  anno  requieverit.  Ejusunus  sexta- 
rius in  duas  urnas  musti  adjicitur,  si  mustum  ex  vineis  collinis  est :  sed  si  ex 
campestribus,  tres  heminae  adjiciuntur.  Patimur  autem,  cum  de  lacu  mustum 
sublatum  est,  biduo  defervescere,  et  purgari,  tertio  die.  defrutum  adjecimus,"  &c. 

\  II  est  encore  possible  de  corriger  la  qualite  du  raisin  par  d'  autres  moyens 
qui  sout  journcllcment  pratiquies.  On  fait  bouiller  une  portion  du  mout  dans 
une  chaudiere,  on  le  rapproche  a  moitie,  et  on  le  verse  ensuite  dans  la  cuve :  par 
ce  procede,  la  partie  aqueuse  se  dissipe  en  partie,  et  la  portion  de  sucre  se  trou- 
vant  alors  raoins  delay  ee,  la  fermentation  marche  avesplus  dc  regularity,  etl» 
pioduit  en  est  plus  g^nereux. 


33 

"best  wine  which  will  last  without  any  condiment,  nor  should 
any  thing  be  mixed  with  it  by  which  its  natural  taste  may  be 
spoiled.  That  is  the  choicest  w  ine  which  can  please  by  its 
own  quality."*  And  this  passage  follows  immediately  the 
one  first  quoted  from  Columella,  in  which  he  tells  us  how 
sapa  is  prepared,  and  that  it  may  be  used  instead  of  defru- 
tum  to  season  must  obtained  from  old  vines. 

In  all  these  quotations  from  Columella,  the  distinction 
between  wine  and  the  boiled  juice  of  the  grape,  whether 
called  sapa  or  defrutum,  is  carefully  observed.  The  object 
of  Columella,  in  treating  of  wines,  was  to  point  out  the  va- 
rious modes  employed  in  his  day  to  preserve  and  improve 
them,  by  increasing  their  strength,  sweetness,  and  durability, 
and  by  imparting  to  them  a  more  agreeable  taste.  His  ob- 
ject was  not  to  treat  of  the  mode  of  making  unfermented 
wine,  and  all  the  directions  which  he  gives  in  regard  to  the 
preparing  of  sapa  and  defrutum  have  reference  to  their  be- 
ing used  as  condiments  for  the  preservation  and  improve- 
ment of  the  weaker  wines.  This  is  distinctly  admitted  by 
the  author  of  Bacchus,  and  the  admission  shows,  that  he  un- 
derstood better  than  Mr.  Parsons  the  design  and  import  of 
Columella's  observations  on  wines.  "  Columella,"  says  Mr. 
Grindrod,  Bacchus,  p.  373,  "  although  not  writing  concern- 
ing unfermented  wine,  the  mode  of  making  which  he  does 
not  describe,  except  so  far  as  was  connected  with  the  pre- 
servation of  wines  of  a  weak  or  watery  quality"  &c. 

We  shall  now  take  our  leave  of  Mr.  Parsons's  sapa  and 
defrutum,  of  which  he  has  made  so  much,  and  to  so  little 
purpose. 

*  Quaecunque  vini  nota  sine  condimento  valet  perennare,  optimam  esse  earn 
censemus,  nee  omnino  quidquam  permiscendum,  quo  naturalis  sapor  ejus  infus- 
etur.    Id  enim  praestantissimum  est,  quod  suapte  natura  placere  poterit 


34 

Let  ns  next  examine  a  passage  in  Columella,  Book  xii.  27, 
quoted  and  translated  by  Mr.  Parsons:  "  De  vinodulcifaci- 
endo :"  "  Gather  the  grapes  and  expose  them  for  three  days 
to  the  sun  ;  on  the  fourth,  at  mid-day,  tread  them ;  take  the 
mustum  lixivum  (that  is,  the  juice)  which  flows  into  the 
lake  before  you  use  the  press,  and  when  it  has  settled, 
add  one  ounce  of  pounded  iris ;  strain  the  wine  from  its 
feces,  and  pour  it  into  a  vessel.  This  wine  will  be  sweet, 
firm  or  durable,  and  healthy  to  the  body."* 

But  what  means  the  expression,  "has  settled?  Does  it 
convey  the  precise  meaning  of '  deferbueritj  the  term  used 
in  the  original  passage  ?  Does  not  the  Latin  word  imply  a 
previous  fermentation  ;  and  should  it  not  have  been  render- 
ed, "  has  become  cool,"  or,  "  ceased  to  ferment  ?"  Is  this 
not  the  proper  and  legitimate  meaning  of  the  word,  which 
Mr.  P.  has  rendered  by  the  ambiguous  phrase  "  has  settled  ?" 
Columella  says  nothing  in  this  passage  of  boiling,  by  the 
the  application  of  external  heat,  and  consequently  "  defer- 
buerit"  can  refer  only  to  the  cooling  consequent  on  the  heat 
produced  by  the  intestine  motion  of  the  must  during  the 
time  of  its  passing  into  the  state  of  wine.  Of  the  propriety 
of  our  comment,  any  one  may  satisfy  himself  by  consulting 
any  Latin  Dictionary  that  may  be  at  hand.  But  perhaps 
Mr.  Parsons  is  as  much  afraid  of  being  led  astray  by  the 
Lexicographer  as  he  is  by  the  translator,  and  therefore  deem- 
ed it  best  to  define  the  term  to  suit  himself.  It  would  not 
have  answered  his  purpose  to  have  rendered  "  deferbuerit" 

*  "Vinum  duke  sic  facere  oportet.  Uvas  legito,  in  sole  per  triduum  expangito, 
quarto  die  raeriadino  tempore  calidas  uvas  proculcato,  mustum  lixivium,  hoc  est, 
antequam  prelo  pressum  sit,  quod  in  lacum  musti  fluxerit  tollito,  cum  deferbu- 
erit, in  sextarios  quinquaginta  irim  bene  pinsitam  nee  plus  unciae  pondere  ad- 
dito,  vinum  e  fecibus  eliquatum'  diffundito,  hoc  vinum  erit  suave,  firmum,  cor- 
pori  salubre."    Columella,  xii :  27. 


35 

«  has  cooled/'  or,  "  ceased  to  ferment ;"  for  his  avowed  ob- 
ject in  quoting  the  passage  was  to  afford  the  reader  an  idea 
of  the  ancient  way  of  preserving  the  juice  of  the  grape  from 
fermentation. 

So,  alas,  we  see  that  even  in  the  making  of  sweet  wine 
among  the  ancient  Romans,  the  must  was  fermented.  It  is 
true  that  the  strength  of  this  sweet  wine  was  diminished  by- 
depriving  it  of  its  lees,  but  this  was  not  done  until  the  first 
fermentation  had  ceased,  by  which  in  all  wines  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  the  alcohol  is  produced. 

"  When  the  fermentation  in  the  vat  has  ceased,"  says 
Henderson,  p.  18,  "  the  wine  is  drawn  off  into  casks,  where 
it  undergoes  a  new  elaboration,  which  renders  it  again  tur- 
bid, and  produces  a  repetition,  in  a  slight  degree,  of  all  the 
phenomena  marked  in  the  former  process." 

To  this  two-fold  fermentation,  Columella  alludes  in  c.  24, 
in  which  he  treats  of  the  mode  of  preparing  the  condiment, 
called  "  Pix  Nemeturica,"  "  et  vina  cum  jam  bis  deferbue- 
rint."  Perhaps  Mr.  Parsons  would  render  this  passage, 
'  and  wines,  when  they  have  now  twice  settled."  That 
Columella  understood  the  difference  between  settling  and 
ceasing  to  ferment,  is  evident  from  the  sentence  immediately 
preceding,  in  which  the  following  words  occur :  "  deinde  pat- 
iemur  picem  considere,  et  cum  sederit  aquam  eliquabimus." 

In  Book  xii.  c.  25,  treating  of  the  flavouring  of  wine  after 
the  Grecian  mode,  with  salt  or  sea  water,  Columella  thus 
says,  near  the  close  of  his  remarks,  "  Before  you  take  the 
must  from  the  vat,  fumigate  the  vessels  with  rosemary, 
laurel,  or  myrtle,  and  fill  the  vessels  full,  that  in  fermenting, 
he  wine  may  purge  itself  well."* 

*  "  Mustum  antequam  de  lacu  tollas,  vasa  rore  marino  vel  lauro  vel  myrto  3uf- 
fimigato,  et  large  repleto,  ut  in  effervescendo  vinum  se  bene  purgat." 


36 

The  distinction  between  ivine  and  must  is  most  distinctly 
marked  in  this  passage,  and  the  difference  is  shown  to  consist 
in  the  fermenting  of  the  wine.  We  have  already  noticed  the 
fact,  that  in  its  application  to  wines,  Pliny  mentions,  as  the 
definition  of  fewer e  {to  ferment)  "  iransitus  musti  in  vi- 
na"  the  passing  of  must  into  wine. 

Varro  is  another  writer  on  Rural  Economy  mentioned  by 
Mr.  Parsons,  among  those  authors  he  had  read  in  the  origi- 
nal. Could  he  ever  have  read  the  following  passage  ?  "  Quod 
mustum  conditur  in  dolium,  ut  habeamus  vinum,  non  pro- 
mendum  dum  fervet,  neque  etiamdum  processit  ita,  ut  sit 
vinum  factum. "  "The  must  that  is  put  into  a  dolium,  in 
order  that  we  may  have  wine,  should  not  be  drawn  while  it  is 
fermenting,  and  has  not  yet  advanced  so  far  as  to  be 
converted  into  wine.^ 

Can  it  admit  of  a  doubt  that  by  the  term  wine,  Pliny,  Co- 
lumella, and  Varro  meant  the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape? 
We  presume  that  not  even  Mr.  Parsons  himself  will  venture 
to  affirm  that  his  favourite  authorities,  Pliny  and  Columel- 
la, used  the  term  vinum  {wine)  in  a  sense  different  from  its 
common  acceptation  among  the  Romans.  That  in  treating 
of  wines,  these  writers  have  mentioned  modes  of  preserving 
the  juice  of  the  grape  other  than  by  fermenting  it,  we  with- 
out the  least  hesitation  admit ;  and  that  this  unfermented 
juice,  whether  inspissated  or  not,  was  some  times  used  as  a 
drink,  we  do  not  question;  but  we  do  maintain  that  the 
common  and  almost  universal  acceptation  of  vinum,  the 
Latin  term  for  wine,  is  the  fermented  juice  oi  the  grape,  and 
that  when  the  term  is  applied  to  any  other  preparation  of 
grape  juice  it  is  connected  with  some  word  qualifying  the 
import  of  vinum.  Whether  the  above  quotations  sustain  us 
in  making  this  statement,  let  the  reader  judge. 


37 

The  same  remark  may  be  made  of  the  Greek  term  ofws, 
corresponding  to  the  Latin  vinum,  and  the  English  wine ; 
and  there  is  not  a  particle  more  of  ambiguity  in  the  use  of 
the  Greek  oTvog,  than  there  is  in  the  use  of  the  Latin  vinum, 
or  of  the  English  term  wine. 

The  following  passage  from  the  Poet  Alexis  indicates  the 
true  import  of  oTns.  "  Poetae  Graeci  Minores,"  by  Winter- 
ton,  p.  527: 

'OfxoioVaTOg  uv&guifas  o'/vw  Tr,v  (purfiv 

TVoffov  tiv'  sorr  tov  yag  o'/vov  TOV  V£0V 
IIoXXt;  y1  dvuyxr\  xal  tov  av^'  diro^sdai. 

£  In  a  certain  respect  man  much  resembles  ?#?'ne,  for  both 
new  wine  and  man  must  needs  ferment.'  The  verb  aitotyu 
signifies  rather  to  give  over fermenting 'than  to ferment ;  but 
in  this  acceptation  it  includes  the  idea  of  fermentation. 

In  further  confirmation  of  our  remark  on  the  import  of 
ofvog,  we  quote  the  following  passage  from  Diophanes,  a  Greek 
writer,  who  is  mentioned  with  commendation  by  Columella 
and  Varro,and  who  is  referred  to  by  Pliny  as  one  of  his  autho- 
rities. Diophanes  was  cotemporary  with  Julius  Caesar.  "Be- 
fore the  must  is  put  into  the  <gi6oi  (vessels  made  of  clay)  they 
should  be  sponged  with  pure  brine,  and  fumigated  with 
frankincense.  They  ought  not  to  be  filled  completely,  nor 
should  there  be  a  deficiency,  but  we  must  conjecture  what 
increase  the  fermenting  must  will  probably  make,  so  that  it 
may  not  overflow,  and  that  the  foam  being  elevated  to  the 
edges,  it  may  cast  out  only  that  which  is  impure."  .    .   dXX' 

sixa^civ  otfov  aixog  to  yXsuxos  wro^sov  dv^r\div  tfoisiv,  ojo*t£  (xri  virsp-^sid8ai, 
xai  dd-TS  tou  a<p£ou  awg  tojv  ^aiXuv  fjiSTSwgitfdswotfj  to  (J.rt  xa.8a.gov  jjtovov 
atfowTusiv.     Geoponics,  p.  160. 

This  direction  is  not  given  concerning  any  wine  in  parti- 
cular, but  of  the  management  of  wine  in  general. 


38 

Democritus,  another  writer,  also  much  commended  by 
Columella,  and  quoted  by  Varro,  Pliny,  and  Palladius,  and 
who  was  born  460  years  B.  C,  gives  the  following  direc- 
tions respecting  the  management  of  wines  in  cases  where  the 
grapes  have  been  much  exposed  to  rain,  and  where  the 
must  is  ascertained  to  be  watery.  "  When  the  wine,  6  ofvog, 
has  been  lodged  in  the  dolium,  and  has  undergone  the  first 
fermentation,  t^v  mfi<rt\v  £s'tfiv  ^kr),  let  us  immediately  transfer  it 
to  other  vessels  (for  all  the  feculence  on  account  of  its  weight 
remains  at  the  bottom)  and  add  to  the  wine  three  cotylae  of 
salt  for  ten  metretrae." 

This  passage,  with  some  variation,  is  cited  by  Palladius 
Lib.  xi.  9  and  14,  who  says:  "The  Greeks  direct,  when  the 
grape  has  been  too  much  exposed  to  the  rain,  that  the  must 
(mustum)  be  transferred  to  other  vessels,  after  it  has  under- 
gone its  first  fermentation,  primo  ardore  fervebit.  On  ac- 
count of  its  weight  the  remaining  water  will  sink  to  the  bot- 
tom, and  the  removed  wine  (vinum)  will  be  preserved  pure. 
Observe  here  that  before  the  fermentation  the  juice  of  the 
grape  is  called  must ;  after  the  fermentation,  wine.  That 
the  terms  £s'w  and  ferveo  refer  here  to  the  vinous  fermenta- 
tion, and  not  to  boiling,  is  evident  from  the  passage  in  De- 
mocritus immediately  following,  in  which  he  says:  "  Some, 
pursuing  a  better  course,  boil,  i^Sutfi,  the  must  till  the  twen- 
tieth part  is  consumed,"  a  method  used  also  at  the  present 
day,  as  before  shown,  to  increase  the  fermentation  and  the 
strength  of  the  wine. 

These  directions,  it  is  perceived,  are  general,  not  having 
reference  to  any  particular  kind  of  wine ;  and  they  show  that 
among  the  Greeks,  as  well  as  among  the  Romans,  the  terms 
corresponding  to  our  term  wine  were  employed  to  denote 


39 

the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape,  just  to  the  same  extent  that 
the  word  wine  does  with  us.  And  it  would  be  as  rational 
to  argue,  that  the  term  wine  in  English  and  vin  in  French 
denote  in  general  an  unfermented  liquor,  as  to  maintain 
that  on/os  and  vinum  do. 

Do  not  the  French  boil  their  must  ?  Do  they  not  reduce 
it  by  boiling  to  even  the  consistence  of  the  ancient  defrutum? 
Do  they  not  preserve  must  from  the  external  air,  and  thus 
keep  it  sweet  and  unfermented  ?  Have  they  not  wines  so  light 
"  that  a  person  may  drink  three  or  four  bottles  in  the  course 
of  the  day,  without  intoxication  being  produced?"  (See 
Bacchus,  p.  391.)  And,  consequently,  as  innocent  as  any 
ancient  wine  ?  Why  not  argue  from  the  vin  cuit,  the  rai- 
sine',  the  vin  muet,  &c.  of  the  French,  that  the  term  vin 
for  the  most  part  denotes  an  unfermented  liquor,  as  Mr. 
Parsons  does  in  reference  to  the  word  vinum?  which,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  P.'s  understanding  of  Pliny,  does  only  in  one 
instance  denote  a  fermented  liquor,  containing  sufficient  al- 
cohol to  emit  a  flame.  It  would  not  be  a  particle  more  ab- 
surd than  the  reasoning  of  Mr.  P.,  and  not  \rery  much  more 
so  than  that  of  Mr.  Grindrod,  as  to  the  general  character  of 
the  ancient  wines. 

Before  concluding  our  remarks  on  this  subject  we  must 
give  a  few  more  specimens  of  the  critical  acumen,  accurate 
statements,  and  logical  inferences  of  our  authors,  and  espe- 
cially of  Mr.  Parsons. 

"  Pliny,  Columella,  Cato,  and  others,"  says  Mr.  P.,  "  give 
us  receipts  for  making  almost  every  variety  of  wine  then  in 
use;  such  as  wine  from  hore-hound,  wine  from  worm-wood, 
hyssop,  southern  wood,  myrtle,  &c.  Myrtle  appears  to  have 
been  a  great  favourite."  But  what  of  all  that  ?  Does  the 
mere  mention  of  them  by  these  writers  prove  that  they  were 
not  fermented  ?  Were  they  not  all  made  by  fermenting  the 
juice  of  the  grape,  with  some  one  of  these  articles  thrown  in 


40 

before  the  fermentation  began  ?  Columella  alludes  to  their 
fermentation ;  and  in  the  case  of  the  myrtle  wine,  the  only 
one  of  these  of  which  Cato  speaks,  he  expressly  mentions  its 
fermentation.     His  words  are  :  "  Vinum  murteum  sic  facito. 

Ubi  desierit  fervere  mustum,  murtam  eximito." 

"Myrtle  wine  make  thus:  .  .  .  .  when  the  must  has  ceased 
to  ferment  take  out  the  myrtle."     Cato,  ch.  cxxv. 

Mr.  Parsons  quotes  from  Pliny  the  following  words  :  "  Uti- 
lissimum  vinum  omnibus  sacco  viribus  fractis ;"  and  thus 
translate  them, "  The  most  useful  wine  is  that  which  has  all 
its  strength  broken  or  destroyed  by  the  filter."  That  the 
reader  may  see  how  carefully  Mr.  P.  examined  the  context, 
as  he  says  he  did  in  every  instance,  we  will  quote  the  pas- 
sage, L.  xxiii.  24  :  "  Nunc  circa  aegritudines  sermo  de  vinis 
erit,  saluberrimum  liberaliter  genitis,  Campaniae  quodcun- 
que  tenuissimum  :  vulgo  vero,  quod  quemque  maxime  juve- 
rit  validum.  Utilissimum  omnibus  sacco  viribus  fractis. 
Meminerimus  succum  esse,  qui  fervendo  vires  e  musto  sibi 
fecerit.     Misceri  plura  genera,  omnibus  inutile." 

A  bare  inspection  of  this  passage  will  satisfy  the  reader 
who  has  any  knowledge  of  Latin,  that  Mr.  Parsons  has 
mistaken  the  meaning  of  Pliny,  and  that  the  word  omnibus 
all,  has  no  reference  to  the  strength  of  the  wine,  but  to  the 
persons  drinking  it,  and  the  reader  will  perceive  the  same 
from  the  following  translation :  "  Our  discourse  will  now  be 
of  the  use  of  wines  in  maladies.  For  gentlemen,  the  thin- 
nest Campanian  wine  is  the  most  wholesome  ;  but  for  the 
commonalty,  the  wines  which  please  each  when  in  firm 
health.  The  most  useful  for  all  persons,  is  that  whose 
strength  is  diminished  by  the  filter.  We  should  remember 
the  juice  to  be  that  which  by  fermenting  acquires  for  itself 
strength  from  the  must.  The  mingling  of  different  wines  is- 
useless  to  all." 


41 

The  reason,  doubtless,  for  directing  invalids  of  the  higher 
ranks  in  society  to  use  wines  of  Campania  in  preference  to 
others  was,  that  the  choicest  Italian  wines,  and  those  most 
esteemed  by  the  Roman  nobility  and  gentry,  were  from 
Compania,  as  it  is  witnessed  by  Strabo,  Lib.  v.  14  :  Koj  fw?v 

TOV   OJVOV  TOV  XPOCTKTTOV   g'vTSudSV  S^O'jtfl   'PwfJLOCIOI,   X.  T.   X.      "  X1  l'ODl  lieilCe 

also  they  have  the  best  wine,"  and  among  them  he  enume- 
rates the  Falernian,  Statan,  Calenum,  and  Surrentine.  He 
mentions  also  the  fact  that  the  Surrentine  had  of  late  become 
the  rival  of  the  others.  Pliny  says  of  it,  that  it  does  not  af- 
fect the  head.  "  Surrentina  vina  caput  non  tentant."  Not, 
however,  for  the  reason  assigned  by  Mr.  Grindrod,  p.  392, 
who  translates  tenuitatem,  applied  by  Pliny  to  this  kind  of 
wine,  by  weakness ;  whereas  tenuitas  has  reference  to  the 
perfect  fluidity  of  the  wine,  and  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
a  considerable  degree  of  strength.  The  vinum  tenue  of  the 
Romans  is  the  opposite  of  the  vinum  crassum  or  pingue, 
which  we  presume  neither  of  our  authors  would  be  willing 
to  render  by  the  phrase  "  strong  wine.''''  Mr.  Grindrod  has 
himself  translated  tenuis,  thin,  and  correctly  so.  Bacchus, 
p.  371  : 

"  tenuisque  lageos 

Tentatura  pedes  olim,  vincturaque  linguarn." — Virgil's  Georg. 

"  and  the  thin  lageos 


Will  try  the  feet  at  length,  and  bind  the  tongue." 

Dioscorides,  too,  speaks  of  very  old  thin  white  wines  as 
producing  headache  :  Kai  xs^akaKysTg  ol  He?  gob  got,  ffaXaioi,  xajXswTOJ 
xa.1  Xsuxoi.  Liber  v.  c.  785.  The  tenuity,  therefore,  of  the 
Companian  wine  recommended  by  Pliny,  is  no  proof  of  its 
weakness.  That  the  Surrentine  wines  were  of  a  very  dura- 
ble quality,  is  evident  from  the  testimony  of  Virgil,  who 
styles  them  "  firmissima  vina ;"  and  Athenaeus,  on  the 
6 


42 

authority  of  Galen,  says  of  the  Surrentine  wine,  that  "  it  be- 
gins to  be  fit  for  use  as  a  drink  after  it  is  twenty-five  years 
old,  for  wanting  fatness  and  being  very  harsh,  it  ripens  with 
difficulty."  That  it  was  inferior  in  strength  to  the  Falernian 
is  doubtless  true,  but  it  was  not  on  account  of  its  weakness 
that  it  is  recommended  to  invalids,  or  that  it  was  compared 
by  Tiberius  Csesar  to  vinegar,  but  for  its  thinness  in  the  one 
case,  and  its  rough  taste  in  the  other.  In  the  opinion  of  the 
ancient  physicians,  the  thin  and  harsh  were  more  agreeable 
to  the  stomach,  and  more  easy  of  digestion,  than  the  thick 
wines  :"  'Oi  8s  ira^si's  xa;  jasXavs;  xaxotfTofAa^oi,  cpvffuSsis  ;  .  .  .  'Oi 
(xs'vroi  Xstttoj  xul  auaVr^oi'  sutfTofia^oi.  Dioscorides,  Lib.  v.  c.  7S5. 
This  writer  had  previously  mentioned,  as  characteristics  of 
the  white  wines,  that  they  were  thin,  easy  of  digestion, 
and  suited  to  the  Stomach.      E<r»  fjtiv  oXsuxos  XsffTog  <rs  xa.i  svuvol- 

86tos  xai  Zufadnuxos  iWa£x£'-  Lib.  v.  7S2.  And  among  the  aus- 
tere and  white  wines,  he  enumerates  the  Falernian,  Sur- 
rentine, the  Cecuban,  the  Signinum,  the  produce  of  Cam- 
pania.    Also,  the  Chian  and  Lesbian. 

The  object  of  filtering  was  to  render  it  free  from  its  lees, 
which  were  regarded  by  the  ancients  as  the  source  of  strength 
in  wine,  and  the  removal  of  which  rendered  the  wine  at  the 
same  time  better  fitted  to  the  stomach,  and  less  affecting  the 
head.  See  Plutarch's  Symposiacs,  Liber  vi.  7,  in  which  the 
question  is  discussed,  "  Whether  wine  should  be  filtered." 
This  filtering  of  wines,  for  the  purpose  mentioned,  is  prac- 
tised by  the  modern  Persians,  as  appears  from  Thevenot's 
Travels.  Part  ii.  p.  126.  "  The  wine  of  Schiraz  is  an  ex- 
cellent stomach  wine,  but  very  strong.  .  .  .  They  have 
both  red  and  white,  but  the  red  is  the  best ;  it  is  full  of  lees, 
and  therefore  very  heady  ;  to  remedy  which  they  filtrate  it 
through  a  cloth,  and  then  it  is  very  clear  and  free  from 
fumes."     The  very  filtering  of  the  wine,  for  the  purpose  of 


43 

diminishing  its  strength, shows  that  the  wine  was  fermented; 
and  it  is  expressly  said  by  Pliny,  and  that  too  immediately 
after  the  words  quoted  by  Mr.  Parsons,  that  this  strength, 
vires,  is  acquired  by  the  fermenting  of  the  must.  As  the  di- 
rection respecting  filtering  is  not  given  in  reference  merely 
to  the  thin  wines  of  Campania,  but  to  any  wine  which 
might  be  used,  "  quod  quemque  maxime  juverit,"  it  furnish- 
es additional  evidence,  if  it  were  wanted,  that  the  ancient 
wines  were  fermented,  and  that  it  was  from  their  fermenta- 
tion they  derived  their  strength. 

On  the  subject  of  filtering  wines,  Mr.  Parsons  farther 
quotes  from  Pliny  the  following  words  :  "  Ut  plus  capiamus 
sacco  franguntur  vires;"  which  he  thus  renders  :  "  That  we 
may  be  able  to  drink  a  greater  quantity  of  wine,  we  break 
or  deprive  it  of  all  its  strength  or  spirit."  What  word  in 
the  original  corresponds  to  the  very  unimportant  word  all 
in  this  translation  ?  Why  not  insert  omnes  in  the  original, 
and  thus  make  both  agree  ? 

"  It  seems,"  says  Mr.  P.,  "that  the  filtering  mentioned  in 
the  passages  quoted  above,  was  generally  performed  before 
the  wine  was  allowed  to  ferment."     But  from  what  does  it 
thus  seem  ?    From  Pliny's  own  statement  of  the  case  ?    No ; 
for  Pliny  most  plainly  shows,  that  the  contrary  was  the  fact. 
It  appears  to  be  a  conclusion  from  the  laws  of  fermentation, 
into  which  Mr.  P.,  according  to  his  account  of  the  matter, 
"  inquired  very  minutely."     "  Chemistry  informs  us,"  says 
Mr.  P.,  "  that  gluten  is  as  essential  to  fermentation  as  sugar. 
But  gluten  is  a  most  insoluble  body,  and  therefore  the  fre- 
quent filtering  of  the  must  would  deprive  it  of  this  principle 
so  essential  to  fermentation."     Pliny  says  nothing  of  fre- 
quent  filterings ;  nor  do  Horace  and  Plutarch,  to  whom  re- 
ference is  made  by  Mr.  Parsons.     They  had  not  inquired  so 
very  minutely  into  the  laws  of  fermentation ;  and  had  they 


44 

filtered  the  must  instead,  of  the  wine,  they  would  have  found 
from  actual  experiment,  that  their  object  would  not  have 
been  attained.  If  the  ancients  were  acquainted  with  so  very 
simple  a  method  of  preventing  the  fermentation  of  the  must, 
would  it  not  be  surprising  that  they  adopted  the  very  trou- 
blesome methods  they  did  with  this  end  in  view  ?  On  this 
subject,  we  presume,  the  authority  of  Berzelius,  confess- 
edly at  the  head  of  the  chemists  of  the  present  day,  will 
be  regarded  as  more  conclusive  than  any  reasonings  of  our 
author.  Berzelius  informs  us,  that  if  the  fermenting  liquor 
be  filtered  after  the  fermentation  has  advanced  to  a  certain 
point,  say  to  a  fourth  part,  the  fermentation  will  be  checked ; 
but  after  some  time  it  will  be  renewed,  and  will  be  more 
gentle  than  before;  but  if  the  liquor  be  filtered  when  the  ope- 
ration is  more  advanced,  then  the  fermentation  will  be  com- 
pletely arrested.  It  is  not  until  the  fermentation  is  consi- 
derably advanced,  that  the  gluten  is  precipitated  in  such 
quantity,  that  it  can  be  so  separated  by  the  filter  as  to  pre- 
vent entirely  the  further  fermentation  of  the  liquor,  and  of 
course  before  fermentation  it  cannot  thus  be  separated.* 

These  words  of  Pliny,  respecting  the  Falernian  wine, 
"  solo  vinorum  flamma  accenditur,"  Mr.  Parsons  under- 
stands as  asserting  that  the  "  Falernian  wine  was  the  only 

*  Si  Ton  filtre  la  liqueur  qui  fermente,  quand  elle  est  arrivee  a  un  certain 
point,  par  example,  au  quart  de  Tepoque  de  la  fermentation,  le  liquide  transpa- 
rent, qui  passe  au  travers  du  filtre,  ne  fermente  pas  ;  mais  au  bout  de  quelque 
temps,  il  recommence  a  setroubler  eta  fermenter, quoique  plus  lentement  qu'au- 
paravant.  Si  Ton  filtre  la  liqueur  quand  1' operation  est  plus  avancee,  la  fermen- 
tation s'arrete  completement." 

....  "En  outre,  il  resulte  de  1'  experience,  dont  je  viens  de  parler,  que  la 
portion  precipitee  du  gluten  est  scule  propre  a  developper  la  fermentation,  et 
que  si  tout  ce  qui  pouvait  ctre  precipite  l'a  ete  avant  filtration,  le  sucre  que 
reste  dans  la  liqueur  n'est  plus  detruit."  See  Traite  de  Chimie,  par  Berzelius' 
Vol.  vi.  pp.  405,  406. 


45 

one  which,  in  the  time  of  Pliny,  would  emit  a  flame.  «  Here 
then,"  says  our  author,  "we  have  the  most  remarkable  evi- 
lence,  that  the  Latin  wines  were  not  alcoholic,  or  at  least, 
contained  so  little  that  only  one  out  of  three  hundred  and 
ninety  would  emit  a  flame:"  A  very  extraordinary  fact 
this,  if  it  be  one  ;  but  we  are  somewhat  distrustful  of  Mr. 
Parsons's  inference  from  the  statement  of  Pliny.  The  exact 
rendering  of  Pliny's  language  is  :  "  It  is  the  only  wine  by 
which  a  flame  is  kindled ;"  and  the  obvious  import  of  which 
is,  that  it  is  the  only  wine  which  will  of  itself  support  a  flame, 
which  circumstance  shows  it  to  have  been  a  wine  of  ex- 
traordinary strength.  This  Mr.  Grindrod  also  regards  as 
the  meaning  of  Pliny.  His  words  are  :  "  Faustian  wine," 
remarks  Pliny,  «  will  take  fire  and  burn,."  Bacchus,  p.  200. 
The  Faustian  was  a  species  of  the  Falernian  wine.  Dr.  Hen- 
derson, in  his  "  History  of  Ancient  and  Modern  Wines," 
refers  to  this  same  passage  in  Pliny,  (c.  xiv.  G,)  and  thus 
expresses  the  meaning :  "  They  continue,  however,  in  the 
greatest  estimation ;  and  are,  perhaps,  the  strongest  of  all 
wines,  as  they  burn  when  approached  by  a  flame."  In  giv- 
ing this  translation  of  the  passage,  Dr.  Henderson,  though 
he  does  not  quote  the  Latin,  appears  to  have  adopted  as 
the  true  reading  of  the  original,  and  one  that  is  given  in  the 
margin  of  the  Delphin  Classics,  as  found  in  some  copies,  and 
most  probably  the  correct  one :  "  Solum  vinorum  accenditur 
flamma  ;"  the  obvious  meaning  of  which  is,  that  is  the  only 
wine  of  sufficient  strength  to  take  fire  by  being  brought  in 
contact  with  a  flame ;  and  in  this  respect  it  must  have  re- 
sembled the  brandies  and  other  spirituous  liquors  of  modern 
times.  If  the  true  reading  be  the  one  usually  found  in  the 
copies  of  Pliny,  its  meaning  must  be  that  which  we  have 
assigned  to  it.  And  the  Falernian  must,  in  this  case,  have 
been  a  very  strong  wine,  to  support  a  flame,  or  to  continue 


46 

burning  when  once  ignited.  To  satisfy  himself  of  this,  let 
any  one  take  some  common  Madeira  wine  and  make  the 
attempt  to  set  it  on  fire.  Let  him  bring  into  contact  with  it 
any  ignited  combustible  he  pleases,  and  it  will  be  found  that 
as  soon  as  the  burning  substance  is  removed  there  will  be 
no  flame  visible  on  the  surface  of  the  wine,  as  there  will  be 
in  the  case  of  brandy  that  is  pure  or  but  little  diluted.  It  will 
probably  be  found,  that  no  wine  will  take  fire,  and  con- 
tinue to  burn,  if  it  contain  less  than  30  per  cent,  of  alcohol. 
Whereas  any  liquor  containing  alcohol,  however  weak,  if 
thrown  upon  a  hot  flame  will  emit  a  flash,  and  that  this  was 
the  case  with  the  ancient  wines  in  general,  we  shall  estab- 
lish by  authority  that  Mr.  Parsons  himself  will  not  venture 
to  impugn,  as  he  quoted  parts  of  the  passage ;  omitting  such 
parts  as  are  most  directly  at  variance  with  his  view  of  the 
passage  in  Pliny,  on  which  we  have  just  been  commenting. 

Aid  touto  <ro  s'Xaiov  ov%  s-^stoci,  ov6s  -n-ap^vSTai,  0V1  Su^iaTov  £o*<nv, 
dXX'  ojx  drfjutfrov'  v&ug  <5'  oj  SufAiocrov  aXX1  dr/xitfTov.  O/'voj  S',  6/xsv 
yXux^g  SufAia-Tai*  tfiwv  yu£-  xa.\  ydg  <rdu-ra  tfoisi  ru  eXa/w*  olVs  yu£  uffo 
villous  irvjyvuTai,  xaisrai  ts.  "E(Tti  <5s  ovojjux-ti  oivog,  I'^yw  <5'  oux  £'tf<r»V 
ou  vo.?  oivCjSy];  6  ^ufio'g.  Aio  xai  oJ  (xe^jffxsi.  'O  tu^gjv  6'  o/vos  fjux^dv 
I'^si  dvaSufJuatfiv.    Aio  xai  avr»)tfj  (p\oya.    Aristotle's  Meteor,  iv.  9. 

"  Therefore  oil  is  not  boiled  and  it  is  not  congealed,  be- 
cause it  turns  to  smoke  and  not  to  vapour,  but  water  turns 
to  vapour  not  to  smoke.  And  wine,  the  sweet  is  reduced 
to  smoke,  for  it  is  fat,  and  possesses  the  qualities  of  oil,  for 
it  is  not  congealed  by  cold,  and  it  is  consumed  by  fire.  It 
is  a  wine  in  name  but  not  in  fact,  for  the  liquor  is  not  vin- 
ous, (possesses  not  the  qualities  of  wine),  therefore  also  it 
does  not  intoxicate,  but  wine  in  common,  contains  little  that 
escapes  in  smoke,  and  therefore  emits  a  flash."  The  English 
term  flash  is  derived  from  the  word  used  in  the  Greek,  and 
expresses  the  precise  result  of  throwing  wine  or  any  ferment- 


47 

ed  liquor  into  a  fire  sufficiently  hot  to  disengage  its  alcohol ; 
a  flash  or  transient  flame  is  produced.     And  this  Aristotle 
says  is  a  common  property  of  wine.     Is  it  not  strange  that 
Mr.  Parsons,  in  culling  from  this  passage  the  words  which 
signify,  "  sweet  wine  does  not  intoxicate,"  should  overlook  the 
fact  that  Aristotle  says,  that  this  sweet  wine,  ofvos  y'hvms  though 
called  a  wine  is  not  a  wine,  and  the  other  no  less  important  fact, 
that  wine,  properly  so  called,  and  in  common  use,  when  cast 
into  the  fire,  does  not  consume  away  in  smoke,  but  vanishes 
with  a  flash?     Which  fact  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  show  the 
fermented  and  intoxicating  character  of  the  ancient  wines  in 
general,  and  their  similarity  to  the  wines  of  our  own  times, 
We  wish  not  to  impugn  the  honesty  of  Mr.  Parsons  in  mak- 
ing his  quotations,  yet  his  mode  of  making  them,  viewed  in 
the  most  favourable  light,  argues  the  grossest  carelessness. 
Mr.  Parsons  tells  us  from  Polybius,  (and  it  is  but  little 
that  he  says  on  the  subject),  that  the  ancient  Romans  did 
not  allow  their  women  to    drink  wine,  though  they  per- 
mitted   them    to    use    Passum,  a  drink    which    was   so 
slightly  fermented,  that  there  was  no  danger  of  its  intoxi- 
cating.    And  why  did  they  not  permit  them  ?     Dionysius 
Halicarnassensis  says  it  was  from  fear  lest  becoming  intem- 
perate, they  should  prove  unfaithful?  Butwhatdangercould 
there  be  of  their  becoming  intemperate,  if  the  Roman  wines 
were  not  intoxicating  ?     Ah !  but,  says  Mr.  Parsons,  the  an- 
cients drugged  their  wines,  and  thus  made  them  intoxicating. 
How  does  this  meet  the  case  ?     Was  it  not  just  as  easy  to 
drug  the  lora  and  the  Passum,  which  were  allowed  to  the 
women  as  any  of  the  wines?     And  again  was  it  not  as  easy 
to  drug  fermented  as  unfermented  liquors?     Has  not  the 
greatest  clamour  been  raised,  of  late,  and  very  justly  so  too, 
against  the  vile  practices  of  many  venders  of  wine,  for  mix- 
ing deleterious  drugs  with  their  wines?    The  fact  therefore, 


48 

that  the  ancients  dragged  their  wines,  proves  nothing  in  re- 
gard to  the  question  whether  or  not  they  were  fermented. 
Had  it  been  proved,  that  the  ancient  wines  were  not  ferment- 
ed, then  the  fact  of  tiieir  being  dragged  would  be  important, 
as  showing  the  manner  in  which  they  were  rendered  in- 
toxicating. But  as  this  has  not  been  proved,  cannot  be 
proved,  and  is  contrary  to  the  fact,  as  we  have  already  shown, 
we  pass  this  point  without  further  remark. 

The  famous  Maronean  wine  also  attracts  the  attention  of 
Mr.  P.  and  he  seems  to  regard  the  poetic  description  given  of 
it  by  Homer  as  if  it  were  more  worthy  of  credit,  than  the 
other  fables  respecting  the  one  eyed  Cyclops,  to  whom  this 
wine  was  given  by  Ulysses,  and  upon  whom  it  produced 
such  marvellous  effects. 

We  might  speak  farther  of  the  lor  a  and  the  passum  and 
Cato's  family  wine,  all  of  which  were  indeed  very  weak 
drinks,  but  all  of  them  to  some  extent  fermented,  but 
it  must  be  unnecessary  after  what  has  already  been 
said  on  the  character  of  the  ancient  wines,  concerning  which 
Mr.  Parsons  speaks  with  so  much  confidence  and  yet  mani- 
fests so  little  knowledge.  It  was  our  purpose  before 
we  closed  our  remarks  on  the  point  under  consideration,  to 
examine  at  large  Mr.  Grindrod's  quotations  from  the  Latin 
Poets,  but  we  must  content  ourselves  with  a  brief  notice  of 
two  or  three  of  them,  and  before  doing  this,  we  ought  per- 
haps to  make  our  acknowledgments  for  the  information  he 
gives  us  respecting  Horace,  who  according  to  Mr.  G.,  lived 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  1st.  Century.  This  statement  fol- 
lows a  quotation  from  this  poet,  and  from  the  translation 
given  by  Mr.  G.,  we  learn  that  mulsum  and  mustum,  or  in 
English  mulse  and  must  are  the  same  thing,  the  one  being 


49 

made  from  honey  mixed  with  wine  or  water,  and  the  other 
being  the  fresh  juice  of  the  grape. 

"  Aufidius  forti  miscebatmellaFalerno 
Mendose;  quoniam  vacuis  commiltere  venis 
Nil  nisileoedecet,  lenipiaecordia  mulso 
Prolueris  melius.'' 

"  Aufidius  first,  most  injudicious,  quaffed 
Strong  wine  and  honey  for  his  morning  draught 
With  lenient  beverage  fill  your  empty  veins 
For  lenient  must  will  better  cleanse  the  reins." 

After  this  quotation  and  translation,  Mr.  Grindrod  adds. 
"  In  the  above  striking  passage,  must  is  evidently  considered 
as  a  nutritious  article  of  diet,  and  proper  on  that  account  to 
be  taken  in  the  morning." 

And  hi  this  connexion  he  says,  that  "Juvenal  also  suffici- 
ently testifies,  that  must  was  viewed  by  the  ancients  not 
only  as  a  nutritious  substance,  but  as  peculiarly  favourable 
to  longevity.  This  writer  flourished  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
second  century."  A  little  nearer  the  mark  than  in  the  case 
of  Horace,  yet  not  much. 

"  Rex  Pylius  (magno  si  quicquam  credis  Homero) 
Exemplum  vitae  fuit  a  cornice  secundae : 
Felix  nimirum,  qui  tot  per  secula  mortem 
Distulit,  atque  suos  jam  dextra  computit  annos, 
Quive  novum  toties  mustum  bibit." 

Juvenal  x.  246—250. 

These  lines  Mr.  G.  thus  translates:  "The  Pylian  king,  if  you 

at  all  believe  great  Homer,  was  an  example  of  life,  second 

from  a  raven.     Happy,  no  doubt,  who  through  so  many 

ages  deferred  death,  and  now  computes  his  years  with  the 

7 


50 

right  hand,  and  ivho  so  often  drank  new  must."  How 
quive  comes,  in  this  passage,  to  signify  "and  who,"  we 
know  not,  and  we  presume  that  almost  any  Latin  scholar 
would  render  it  "  or  who,"  thus  showing  that  he  understands 
the  words  of  Juvenal,  "  Quive  novum  toties  mustum  bibit," 
as  merely  expressing,  in  poetic  style,  the  fact  that  Juvenal 
regarded  Nestor  as  peculiarly  happy  in  so  often  reckoning  a 
new  year  added  to  his  life  :  the  treading  of  grapes  mark- 
ing as  distinctly  as  any  thing  can  do  it,  the  revolution  of 
the  year. 

"  A  frugal  roan  that  with  sufficient  must 
His  casks  replenished  yearly." — Philips. 

That  must  was  not  always  regarded  so  wholesome  a  drink 
as  Mr.  G.  supposes,  is  evident  from  the  remarks  respecting 
it  made  by  Hippocrates,  who  says  of  it,  "that  it  produces 
flatulence,  purges,  and  causes  commotion,  by  fermenting  in 
the  stomach,  rXsCxog  cpuffa,  xai  viraysif  xai  sxra^atftfSTcu  £s'ov  iv  rfi 
xoiXivj.     Hippocrates,  Sect.  iv.  p.  26. 

Again  after  giving  two  lines  from  Virgil's  Georgics  he  adds, 
"It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  Virgil  would  reccommend 
fermented  wine  to  bees  as  a  means  of  restoring  their  health." 
Yes  surely,  and  Virgil  says  nothing  about  giving  them  wine 
fermented  or  unfermented,  new  or  old ;  but  must  boiled  to 
the  consistence  of  honey. 

"  Arentesque  rosas,  aut  igni  pinguia  multo 
Defruta,  vel  Psythia  passos  de  vite  racemo* ," 

Virgil's  Georg.  iv.  269,  270. 

We  shall  advert  once  more  to  the  remarks  of  our  authors 
on  the  thick  and  sirupy  character  of  the  ancient  wines.  They 
seem  to  regard  it  as  an  almost  universal  characteristic  of  the 
ancient  wines,  and  we  have  seen  that  Mr.  Grindrod  has  re- 


51 

presented  Chaptal  as  describing  the  celebrated  ancient  wines 
as  being  in  general  little  else  than  sirups  or  extracts.  It  is 
only,  however,  of  the  wines  of  Arcadia,  mentioned  by  Aris- 
totle ;  of  the  Opimiau  wines,  mentioned  by  Pliny,  and  of 
some  wines  of  Asia,  mentioned  by  Galen,  that  Chaptal 
speaks,  when  he  says,  of  the  statements  made  respecting 
them,  "Bnt  all  these  facts  can  pertain  to  none  other 
than  wines  sweet,  thick,  and  little  fermented,  or  to 
juices  not  changed  and  concentrated ;  they  are  rather  ex- 
tracts than  liquors,  and  were  perhaps  no  other  than  raisine, 
very  analagons  to  that  which  we  make  at  the  present  day, 
by  the  thickening  and  concentration  of  the  jnice  of  the 
grape."*  Now, admitting  that  the  remarks  of  Chaptal  concern- 
ing these  wines  are  in  all  respects  correct,  would  they  prove  any 
thing  more  than  that  among  the  hundreds  in  the  varieties  of 
the  ancient  wines,  there  were  a  few  preparations  of  the 
grape-juice,  so  concentrated  by  boiling,  or  by  being  lodged 
in  fumaria,  and  so  little  fermented  that  they  deserved 
the  name  of  extracts  rather  than  of  liquors,  and  that 
though  classed  with  wines,  (from  the  circumstance  of  their 
being  made  from  the  juice  of  the  grape,)  they  were  not  in 
fact  wines,  as  Aristotle  says  respecting  the  oTvog  ykwx>s. 

Are  not  these  wines  mentioned  by  Aristotle,  Pliny,  and 
Galen,  on  account  of  their  wonderful  consistency?  And 
does  not  this  very  circumstance  show  that  they  were  differ- 
ent from  the  wines  in  common  use  ?  Nothing  is  said  by 
these  writers  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  preparing  them, 
though,  with  respect  to  some,  the  mode  of  preserving  them 
is  mentioned.     The  wines  of  Arcadia,  Aristotle  says,  were 

*  "  Mais  tous  ces  faits  ne  peuvent  appartenir  qu'  a  des  vins  doux,  epais,  peu 
fermentes,  ou  a  des  sues  non  alteres  et  rapproches  ;  ce  sont  des  extraits  plu- 
tot  que  des  liqueurs  ;  et  peut-etre  n'etoit-ce  qu'un  raisine  tres  analogue  a  celui 
que  nous  formons  aujourd'  hui  par  l'£paississement  et  la  concentration  du  sue  du 
raisin."     Annales  de  Chimie.  xxxv.  p.  245. 


52 

placed,  while  new,  in  skins,  and  dried  by  smoke  f  and  those 
mentioned  by  Galen  were  treated  in  the  same  way.  Were 
the  original  juices  very  rich  in  saccharine  matter,  they  may 
have  been  fermented,  and  yet  there  would  have  remained 
after  the  fermentation,  a  considerable  portion  of  the  sugar 
unchanged.  Then  by  exposing  them,  when  deposited  in 
skins,  to  the  action  of  hot  smoke,  the  watery  parts  would 
have  been  evaporated  through  the  pores  of  the  skins,  and 
lite  sugar  and  other  more  solid  ingredients  would  have  re- 
mained. And  farther,  this  result  might  have  taken  place 
without  any  diminution  of  the  alcohol.  For  it  is  a  well  es- 
tablished fact,  that  there  are  some  substances  which  permit 
the  aqueous  parts  to  pass  through  them  more  freely  than 
they  do  the  alcohol,  and  there  are  others  through  which  al- 
cohol escapes,  while  the  water  remains.  Henderson,  p.  325, 
mentions  this  experiment :  "  Dr.  Soemmering  filled  a  com- 
mon Bohemian  wine-glass  with  Ansmanshauser,  covered 
it  with  ox-bladder,  and  allowed  it  to  remain  for  eighty-one 
days  undisturbed,  in  a  warm  and  dry  room.  During  this 
time,  one  half  the  quantity  enclosed  had  evaporated ;  and 
the  residue  had  acquired  a  more  spirituous,  and  at  the  same 
time  more  mellow  and  agreeble  flavour  and  aroma  than  the 
wine  originally  possessed.  The  colour  was  considerably 
heightened ;  a  crystalline  coat,  or  film,  had  formed  on  the 

*  As  a  specimen  of  Mr.  Grindrod's  accuracy  in  quoting  his  authorities,  we 
give  the  following  sentence  from  Bacchus,  p.  197  :  "Aristotle  states,  that  either  by 
their  natural  consistence  or  by  boiling,  or  by  adulteration,  the  wines  of  Arcadia 
were  so  thick  that  they  dried  up  in  the  goatskins."  Now  Aristotle  says  not  one 
word  about  natural  consistence,  boiling,  or  adulteration,  (as  the  reader  may  see 
by  examining  the  original ;)  and  on  the  subject  of  their  consistence,  he  says 
merely,  that  new  wine  possesses  more  of  the  nature  of  earth  than  of  water,  and 
refers  to  the  wines  of  Aicadia  as  furnishing  a  striking  example  of  the  fact. — 
(Meteor :  iv.  10.)  Mr.  G.  appears  to  have  fallen  into  this  error  from  a  misap- 
prehension of  some  remarks  in  Rces'  Cyclopsedia. 


53 

surface  ;  a  deposite  of  crystals  had  also  taken  place,  at  the 
bottom  of  the  glass,  and  the  proportion  of  alcohol  was  ex- 
actly doubled — the  areometer  showing  an  increase  from  4.00 
to  8.00." 

The  crystals  which  were  thus  formed  were  crystals  of 
sugar,  which  had  been  held  in  solution  by  the  evaporated 
water,  and  they  would  doubtless  have  been  increased  in 
number,  if  the  remaining  water  had  also  been  dissipated, 
and  the  result  would  have  been  in  entire  accordance,  we 
think,  with  the  result  of  the  evaporation  mentioned  by  Ga- 
len, viz.  that  the  wines  acquired,  hi  consequence  of  it,  the 
hardness  of  salt.*  Having  no  knowledge  of  sugar  as  it  ex- 
ists at  this  day,  lie  could  not  well  have  made  a  more  apt 
comparison  with  respect  to  the  crystals  of  sugar  which  were 
formed  in  consequence  of  the  evaporation.  This  process  is 
well  known  to  the  Chemists,  under  the  name  of  exosmose. 

The  fact  mentioned  by  Aristotle,  that  the  wines  of  Ar- 
cadia were  scraped  from  the  skins,  shows  that  the  bulk 
of  the  dried  product  must  have  been  exceedingly  small  in 
comparison  with  the  original  bulk  of  the  wine,  and  such  as 
might  well  be  the  product  of  a  very  sweet  wine,  and  one 
but  little  fermented;  at  the  same  time  the  strength  of  the  wine 
must  doubtless  have  been  increased  by  the  process  employed. 

The  fact  that  the  quantity  was  diminished,  and  that  the 
strength  of  the  wine  increased  with  its  age,  did  not  escape 
the  attention  of  the  ancients,  it  being  distinctly  mentioned  by 
Plutarch,  in  his  Symposiacs,  L.  III.  c.  vii.  xoiyivsrai  fisV^w  ftsv 

£>\<XTTWV  0  0IV0S,  <5'JVtt|XSl  8s  <j<po8gfjrS90$. 

lu  the  year  that  Opimins  was  Consul  of  Home,  the  vint- 
age was  remarkable  for  its  excellence ;  the  grapes  were  per- 

*  See  Chaptal'fi  Traitcsur  les  Vins,  Annalesde  Cliimie,  xxxv,  p.  245. 


54 

fectly  ripened,  and  the  juice  exceedingly  rich.  The  quanti- 
ty of  saccharine  matter  in  it  must  have  been  large,  and  hence 
the  generous  quality  of  the  wine,  its  durability,  and  its  great 
reputation.  It  was  preserved  in  the  Amphora,  an  unglazed 
earthern  vessel,  aud  consequently  more  or  less  porous,  and 
through  .the  pores  it  may  well  be  supposed  that  no  inconsi- 
derable portion  of  the  aqueous  particles  would  escape,  in 
the  course  of  almost  two  hundred  years  intervening  between 
the  consulship  of  Opimius  and  the  age  of  Pliny;  also,  that 
the  wine  would  have  the  consistence  of  honey,  and  that  at 
the  same  time  '*Jhave  lost  its  original  sweetness,  and 
acquired  a  bitter  taste.  That  the  wines  most  esteemed  by 
the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  were  thin  wines,  and  yet 
thoroughly  fermented,  we  have  evidence  the  most  indubita- 
ble. Dioscorides,  as  we  have  already  shown,  gives  it  as  a 
characteristic  difference  between  the  white  and  red  wines, 
that  the  former  are  thin,  and  the  latter  thick. 

The  dark  and  thick  wines  as  a  class  were  considered  by  the 
ancients,  as  more  intoxicating  than  those  which  were  white 
andthin,yetsomeof  the  latter,  when  old,  became  very  trouble- 
some to  the  head.  Among  the  white  wines,  Dioscorides  men- 
tions as  before  stated  the  Falernian,the  Surrentine,the  Cecuban, 
the  Chian,  and  the  Lesbian;  than  which  there  were  no  wines 
held  in  higher  repute.  That  the  Falernian  was  a  fermented 
and  intoxicating  wine  is  admitted  even  by  Mr.  Parsons,  and 
if  we  are  not  mistaken,  we  have  furnished  conclusive  evi- 
dence, that  this  was  the  general  character  of  the  ancient 
wines;  or  in  other  words,  that  among  the  ancient  Greeks  and 
Romans,  the  words  corresponding  to  our  term  wine  denoted 
a  fermented  and  intoxicating  liquor,  just  as  much  as  the 
word  wine  does  with  us. 

Near  the  conclusion  of  his  letter  respecting  the  modern 


55 

wines  of  Palestine,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Smith  remarks,  that  he  is 
"  happy  to  find  that  any  apparent  discrepancy  between  him 
and  Mr.  Delavan,  so  far  as  facts  are  concerned,  is  chiefly  if 
not  entirely  verbal."  But  when  the  matter  in  question  has 
respect  to  the  signification  of  a  word,  a  verbal  distinction  is 
everything.  Mr.  Smith  says  distinctly,  that  he  never  found 
the  boiled  and  unfermented  juice  of  the  grape  bearing  the 
name,  or  used  in  the  place  ofivine. 

We  have  now  finished  our  examination  of  the  statements 
made  by  the  authors  of  Bacchus  and  Anti-Bacchus,  in 
support  of  their  opinions  respecting  the  ancient  ivines;  and 
we  feel  bound  to  apologize  for  occupying  so  much  time  and 
space  with  comments  upon  statements  so  inaccurate,  and  ar- 
guments so  idle.  We  should  have  confined  ourselves  to  much 
narrower  limits,  had  not  these  Essays  been  highly  commend- 
ed by  individuals  whose  standing  and  character  have  served 
to  impart,  to  the  productions  of  Messrs  Grindrod  and  Parsons, 
an  importance  which  their  intrinsic  worth  could  never  have 
given  them.  Persons  who  ought  to  have  known  better,  and 
among  them  instructers  in  some  of  our  Colleges,  have  given 
their  countenance  to  these  productions,  and  have  spoken  of 
them  as  containing  views  which  merit  the  most  serious  con- 
sideration. 

The  discussion  of  the  other  matters  proposed  to  be  exam- 
ined, we  must  defer  to  a  subsequent  number. 

II.  In  the  examination  of  the  essays  Bacchus  and  Anti- 
Bacchus,  begun  in  our  No.  for  April,  the  second  position 
proposed  to  be  considered  had  respect  to  the  strength  of  the 
wines  in  Palestine.  "  It  is  impossible,"  says  Mr.  Parsons, 
"  to  obtain  strong  alcoholic  cider  from  sweet  apples,  and  for 
the  same  reason  it  is  impossible  to  obtain  strong  ivines 


56 

from  very  sweet  grapes,  but  the  grapes  of  Palestine,  Asia. 
Minor,  Egypt,  &c.  were  exceedingly  sweet"  Anti-Bacchus., 
p.  203.  And  why  is  it  impossible  ?  Let  Mr.  Parsons  an- 
swer. "  Thus  the  sweetness  of  the  fruits  and  of  the  juices., 
together  with  the  high  temperature  of  the  climate,  must  have 
been  fatal  to  the  existence  of  strong  alcoholic  wines."  p.  204, 
It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  expressed  juice  of  the  grape 
may  be  so  rich  in  saccharine  matter,  as  to  interfere  with  its 
undergoing  a  thorough  fermentation  ;  and  it  is  also  true  that, 
in  this  case,  the  wine  will  not  be  so  strong  as  when  the 
juice  is  less  sweet.  But  before  we  conclude  that  a  strong 
wine  cannot  be  produced  from  "  grapes  exceedingly  sweet," 
let  us  inquire  whether  there  is  no  method  of  diminishing 
the  sweetness  of  the  must,  and  of  so  increasing  the  fermen- 
tation, that  all  the  saccharine  matter  shall  be  converted  into 
alcohol  ?  When  this  point  is  settled,  we  can  then  determine 
what  is  possible.  Is  there  any  difficulty  in  the  way  of  mix- 
ing sufficient  water  with  the  must  to  reduce  it  to  the  state  most 
favourable  to  fermentation  ?  "  It  sometimes  happens,"  says 
Chaptal,  "  that  the  must  is  altogether  too  thick  and  too  su- 
gary ;  in  this  case  the  fermentation  is  gentle  and  imperfect, 

and  the  wines  are  sweet,  luscious,  and  clammy 

7/  ivill  be  easy  in  all  these  cases  to  jwomote  the  fermenta- 
tion; it  may  be  done  by  diluting  the  must  with  water :  also 
by  agitating  the  vintage  as  it  ferments  :  but  all  this  must  be 
subordinate  to  the  end  proposed  to  be  attained,  and  the  in- 
telligent agriculturist  will  vary  the  process  according  to  the 
effect  which  he  proposes  to  produce."* 

*  II  arrive  quclquefois,  que  lc  mout  est  a  la  fois  trop  epais  et  trop  sucre  : 
dans  ce  cas,  la  fermentation  est  tonjours  lente  et  imparfaite,  les  vins  sont 
doux,  liquoreux,  et  piiteux.  ...  II  scroit  aise,  dans  tous  les  cas,  de  provo- 
quer  la  fermentation,  soit  en  delayant,  a  l'aidc  l'eau,  un  mout  trop  epais,  soit 
en  agitant  la  vendage  a  mesure  qu'elle  fermente :  mais  tout  cela  doit  etre  suborn- 


57 

The  high  temperature  of  the  climate  is  mentioned  by  Mr. 
Parsons  as  another  reason,  why  a  strong  wine  cannot  be 
produced  in  Palestine.  That  this  reason  has  no  foundation 
in  fact,  must  be  evident  from  the  following  quotation  : 

"  Syria  has  three  distinct  climates.  The  summits  of  Liba- 
nus  covered  with  snow  diffuse  a  salubrious  coolness  through 
the  interior,  while  the  maritime  low  situations  are  constantly 

subjected  to  heat  accompanied  with  humidity 

In  the  mountains,  the  order  of  the  seasons  very  nearly  re- 
sembles that  of  the  middle  of  France :  the  winter  lasting 
from  November  to  March  is  sharp.  No  year  passes  with- 
out falls  of  snow,  which  often  cover  the  surface  to  the  depth 
of  several  feet  during  entire  months.  The  spring  and  au- 
tumn are  very  agreeable,  and  the  summer  not  oppressive." 
Malte  Brim's  Geography.    Book  xxviii. 

This  statement  given  on  the  authority  of  Volney,  is  con- 
firmed by  recent  travellers  and  residents  in  Syria.  Carne, 
p.  14,  speaks  of  "  the  high  central  chain  of  Lebanon  covered 
with  snow."  And  on  page  40,  he  says  of  the  villages  in- 
habited by  the  Druze  mountaineers,  that  they  "are  situated 
on  one  of  the  wildest  positions  of  Lebanon:  in  lointer,^. 
cold  and  storm  beat,  in  summer  a  welcome  residence  on 
account  of  its  pure  and  bracing  air."  The  Rev.  Mr.  He- 
bard,  of  the  Syrian  mission,  speaking  of  Mount  Lebanon 
says,  "  What  an  excellent  retreat  from  the  sultry  atmosphere 
of  the  plain  is  Mount  Lebanon.  I  hardly  know  what  we 
should  do  without  it,  as  it  would  be  dangerous  to  pass  the 
summer  in  Beyroot.  I  doubt  whether  a  more  salubrious 
climate  can  be  found  in  the  world,  than  is  enjoyed  by  the 

donne  au  but  qu'  on  se  propose  d'obtenir,  et  l'agriculteur  intelligent  variera  ses 
precedes  selon  1'eftet  qu'  il  se  proposera  d'obtenir."  Chaptal,  Traite  sur  les 
Vine,  chap.  IV. 


58 

inhabitants  of  this  goodly  mount.  Its  cool  and  limpid  waters 
gushing  out  of  the  rocks — its  gentle  and  refreshing  breezes 
and  pure  and  healthful  atmosphere,  brace  up  the  system 
and  invigorate  its  impaired  energies.'' '  Missionary  Herald 
for  February,  1S40. 

Whatever  may  be  the  heat  of  the  low  lands  of  Syria,  the 
temperature  of  Mount  Lebanon,  where  the  best  wine  in 
Palestine  was  made,  must  be  sufficiently  cool  for  the  most 
perfect  fermentation.  And  if  any  farther  testimony  is  de- 
sired, in  regard  to  the  seasons  of  Lebanon,  it  can  be  found 
in  the  letters  addressed  to  the  New  York  Observer,  by  Mr. 
Buckingham,  and  by  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Bird  and  Smith,  of 
the  Syrian  mission.  See  also  the  Biblical  Researches  of 
Prof.  Robinson,  vol.  iii,  p.  344,  and  note  1,  p.  440. 

If  then  as  stated  by  Dr.  Henderson,  p.  6,  the  temperature 
most  favourable  to  fermentation  is  about  the  sixty -fift h  degree 
of  Fahrenheit,  it  must  be  abundantly  evident,  that  the  tempe- 
rature of  Mount  Lebanon  is  not  so  high  as  to  render  it  impos- 
sible to  produce  a  strong  wine  from  its  rich  grapes.  The  as- 
sertion of  Mr.  Parsons  is  not  supported  by  a  single  authority, 
and  it  is  moreover  directly  at  variance  with  the  testimony 
of  the  most  credible  witnesses.  The  Rev.  Eli  Smith  says  of 
the  wines  of  Lebanon,  that  they  are  stronger  than  the  wines 
of  Georgia  and  Hungary,  further  north,*  and  yet  even  the 
Tokay  of  Hungary  contains  nearly  ten  per  cent,  of  alcohol.t 

Mr.  Carne,  in  one  of  his  descriptions  of  Mount  Lebanon, 
makes  mention  of  "  the  strong  white  wines  of  Lebanon," 
and  adds  that  "the  vin  cVor  is  the  champaigne  of  the 
East." 

And  now  let  us  ask  what  countries  produce  the  strongest 

*  See  Mr.  Smith's  letter  in  the  No.  for  April,  p.  283. 
f  See  Anti-Bacchus,  p.  164. 


59 

wines?  Are  they  not  the  very  countries  in  which  the  grapes 
arrive  at  the  most  perfect  maturity,  and  in  which  they 
abound  in  saccharine  matter  ?  What  modern  wines  are 
stronger  than  those  of  Madeira,  Sicily,  Spain  and  Portugal, 
and  from  what  other  than  grapes  of  the  richest  juice  do  they 
obtain  these  strong  wines,  containing  in  general  from  sixteen 
to  twenty-three  per  cent,  of  alcohol  ? 

"  If  in  France,"  says  Mr.  Parsons,  "  where  the  saccharine 
qualities  of  the  grape  are  most  favourable  to  perfect  fermen- 
tation, the  wines  when  unmixed  with  alcohol  are  weak  ;  if 
the  strongest  wine,  that  the  pure  juice  of  the  grape  yields, 
does  not  contain  more  than  eight  per  cent,  of  spirit,  then  how 
weak  the  wines  must  have  been  in  those  climates,  whose 
high  temperature  gave  to  the  fruits  an  excess  of  saccharine 
matter ;  and  consequently  the  wines  of  Palestine,  and  other 
hot  climates,  if  allowed  to  ferment  previous  to  the  invention 
of  stills  and  distillation,  must  have  had  in  them  a  a  very 
small  portion  of  alcohol,  and  for  want  of  more  spirit  would 
have  turned  sour."     Anti-Bacchus,  p.  203. 

So  then  we  see,  that  if  Mr.  Parsons  is  right,  in  his  facts 
and  arguments,  it  was  not  only  impossible  in  ancient  times 
to  obtain  a  strong  wine  from  the  grapes  of  Palestine,  but  it 
was  also  impossible  to  keep  a  fermented  liquor  obtained 
from  these  grapes  from  turning  sour.  Upon  whose  autho- 
rity but  his  own  does  Mr.  Parsons  make  the  statement,  that 
"  the  strongest  wine  which  the  pure  juice  of  the  grape  yields, 
does  not  contain  more  than  eight  per  cent,  of  spirit"?  The 
choicest  wines  of  France  contain  from  ten  to  twelve  per 
cent.,  and  the  wines  from  which,  in  the  southern  depart- 
ments of  France,  brandy  is  made,  afford  not  less  than  seven- 
teen per  cent,  of  alcohol,  as  appears  from  the  statements  of 
Chaptal  and  others,  who  tell  us  that  from  three  gallons  of 
wine,  one  gallon  of  brandy  is  obtained,  and  brandy  contains 


60 

upwards  of  fifty  per  cent,  of  alcohol.*  This  fact  alone  is  suf- 
ficient proof,  that  the  pure  juice  of  the  grape  can  of  itself, 
and  without  any  foreign  admixture,  produce  a  wine  contain- 
ing more  than  double  the  quantity  of  alcohol  assigned  to  it 
by  Mr.  Parsons.  It  would  be  ridiculous  to  suppose  that 
they  add  brandy  to  the  wines  which  they  design  to  convert 
at  once  into  brandy ;  and  if  so,  each  of  the  three  gallons  that 
produce  a  gallon  of  brandy  must  contain  at  least  seventeen 
percent,  of  alcohol. 

Granting  then  that  the  grapes  of  Palestine  contain  a 
greater  abundance  of  saccharine  matter  than  the  grapes  of 
France,  this  very  circumstance  would  enable  one  more 
readily  to  obtain  a  strong  wine  from  the  grapes  of  Pales- 
tine than  he  could  from  the  grapes  of  France,  and  yet  from 
these  a  pure  wine  is  obtained,  containing  from  twelve  to 
seventeen  per  cent,  of  alcohol.  Add  to  this,  that  the  wines 
of  Palestine  were  often  preserved  in  skins,  through  the 
pores  of  which,  the  watery  portions  escape  in  greater  or  less 
quantity,  while  the  alcohol  is  retained,  and  it  will  be  appa- 
rent that,  in  ancient  times,  they  may  have  had  in  Palestine 
strong  wines,  and  wines  rendered  strong  solely  from  the 
quantity  of  alcohol,  produced  in  the  course  of  fermentation. 

III.  The  third  position  to  be  examined  is,  that  the  Hebrew 
term  translated  in  our  English  version  of  the  Bible,  "  strong 
drink"  is  inaccurately  rendered,  and  should  be  "  sweet 
drink." 

The  following  passages  indicate  the  views  of  Mr.  Par- 
sons :  "  I  have  made  these  remarks  to  show,  that  our  trans- 

*  The  quantity  of  alcohol  in  brandy,  in  the  table  given  by  Mr.  Parsons,  p. 
164,  is  53.39  per  cent. 


61 

lators  had  no  warrant  for  rendering  the  word  'shacar'*  in 
every  instance  by  the  terms  '  strong  drink.'  Had  they  used 
the  words  'sweet  drink,'  they  would  have  approached  much 
nearer  to  the  truth  ;  for  there  is  not  a  particle  of  doubt,  that 
shacar  meant  a  sweet,  luscious,  satisfying  liquor.  Theodo- 
ret  and  Chrysostom,  both  Syrians,  and  therefore  good  wit- 
nesses, assert  that  shacar  was  palm  wine,  and  Dr.  Shaw 
says,  that  '  this  liquor  is  of  a  more  luscious  sweetness  than 
honey.'  "     Anti-Bacchus,  p.  255. 

"  In  making  the  preceding  remarks,  I  do  not  deny  that 
shacar  might  be  rendered  inebriating  by  the  addition  of 
drugs ;  or  that  those,  who  sought  inebriation,  hesitated  to 
produce  such  a  mixture  ;  and  wines  thus  drugged  may  con- 
stitute the  sicera  of  which  Jerome  speaks;  but  still  I  main- 
tain that  when  shacar  is  used  in  scripture,  we  are  to  under- 
stand a  weak,  sweet  palm  wine,  unless  the  context  shall 
intimate  the  reverse,"  p.  257. 

Our  first  remark  on  these  passages  is,  that  we  presume 
Mr.  Parsons  has  consulted  neither  Theodoret  or  Chrysostom, 
to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  ii&  (shekhar),  but  has  copied 
the  observation  of  Lowth,  on  the  import  of  this  term,  and 
that  too  without  any  acknowledgment.  Lowth's  words  are, 
"Theodoret  and  Chrysostom  on  this  place,  (Isaiah  v.  11), 
both  Syrians,  and  unexceptionable  witnesses,  to  what  be- 
longs to  their  own  country,  inform  us,  that  -o&y  (tfix^a  in  the 
Greek  of  both  Testaments,  rendered  by  us  by  the  general 
term  strong  drink,)  meant  properly  palm  wine  or  date 
wine."  In  this  comment,  Lowth  seems  to  have  overlooked 
a  limitation  to  this  definition  of  "Ot?  given  by  Chrysostom ; 
who  says,  that  "  sicera  in  this  jilace  (iwavQa)  is  the  juice  of 

*  In  all  quotations  we  give  the  Hebrew  terms  as  they  are  spelled  by  the 
authors  from  whom  we  quote. 


62 

dates,  which  by  bruising  and  crushing  the  fruit,  they  labour 
to  convert  into  wine."     What  the  character  of  this  wine  was 
is  stated  in  the  next  member  of  the  sentence.     "  This  kind 
of  sicera  is  stupefactive  and  efficacious  in  producing  drunk- 
enness."*    These  properties  of  this  kind  of  strong  drink, 
Lowth  also  most  distinctly  mentions.  Referring  to  the  name 
curiotae,  given  by  Pliny,  xiv.  1 9,  to  the  palm  or  date  trees, 
and  to  the  remarks  of  this  author,  that  the  name  is  derived 
from  the  circumstance  that  the  wines  obtained  from  them 
are  hurtful  to  the  head,  Lowth  adds — "  Ko^og  signifies  sta- 
pefaction,  and  in  Hebrew  likewise,  the  wine  has  its  name 
from  its  remarkable  inebriating  qualities."     Our  second  re- 
mark on  the  passages  cited  from  Anti-Bacchus,  on  the  im- 
port of  *\2VJ  is,  that  there  is  no  contradiction  between  the 
significations  assigned  to  this  term  by  Jerome  and  Chrysos- 
tom,  the  former  of  whom  says  of  sicera,  the  Greek  term  for 
-Ow!/,  "  omnem  significat  potionem,  quae  inebriare  potest," 
"sicera  denotes  every  drink  which  can  intoxicate."      Of 
course  it  includes  the  palm  or  date  wine,  which  Chrysostom 
says  is  the  import  of  the  term  in  the  particular  passage,  on 
which  he  is  commenting,  and  the  wine  he  describes  as  re- 
markable for  its  stupefying  and  intoxicating  qualities.     The 
comments  of  Theodoret  on  Isaiah  wc  have  not  at  hand,  and 
therefore  cannot  give  his  language,  but  as  his  work  is  said 
to  be  an  abridgment  of  that  of  Chrysostom,t  and  as  Lowth 
makes  no  mention  of  any  discrepancy  in  their  statements, 
but  on  the  contrary  refers  to  them  both  as  giving  the  same 
testimony,  we  may  safely  infer,  that  between  Theodoret 

2/xSpa  os  svruv&u  (prjtfj  <rwv  (poivj'xcou  <rov   oVov,    ov   S7fS<r»j<5suov,  tfuvrgi- 
€ovT£g     <rov     xagxw   xm  xa<raSXwv<rSg,  hs  oivou   ixs-ad^iiwriPsiv   qvtfiv, 
xugumxov  84  'tf<r»  to  toiouto,  xai  fjie'^g  s^yaarixov. 
f  Sec  Gregory's  Church  History,  Vol.  I.  p.  293. 


63 

also  and  Jerome  there  is  no  disagreement  respecting  the  im- 
port of  shekhar,  and  that  whether  this  term  denotes  palm 
wine,  or  some  other  drink,  it  always  denotes  a  drink  which 
can  produce  intoxication. 

Our  next  remark  is,  that  Dr.  Shaw  does  not  say  that  this 
palm  or  date  wine  is  of  a  more  luscious  sweetness  than 
honey,  as  is  asserted  by  Mr.  Parsons,  but  that  the  fresh 
juice  of  the  palm  tree,  which  Dr.  S.  informs  us,  the  natives 
of  the  Sahara  in  Africa,  call  "honey"  not  wine,  is  "of  a 
more  luscious  sweetness  than  honey,"  and  that  "  it  is  of  the 
consistence  of  a  thin  sirup,  but  quickly  groweth  tart  and 
ropy,  acquiring  an  intoxicating  quality,  and  giving  by  distil- 
lation an  agreeable  spirit,  steam  or  araky,  according  to  the 
general  name  of  these  people  for  all  hot  and  strong  liquors 
extracted  by  the  alembic."     See  Shaw's  Travels,  p.  225. 

Mr.  Parsons  says,  "  I  do  not  deny  that  shacar  might  be 
rendered  inebriating  by  the  addition  of  drugs."  Of  course 
he  would  have  us  believe,  that  shekhar  is  not  intoxicating, 
unless  rendered  so  by  the  addition  of  drugs.  But  what  evi- 
dence does  he  give  us  that  this  is  so  ?  Does  Chrysostom 
say  that  it  was  drugs  which  made  the  date  wine  stupefactive 
and  inebriating  ?  No.  Does  Dr.  Shaw  say  so  ?  On  the 
contrary,  he  says  that  it  acquires  an  intoxicating  quality  by 
becoming  tart  and  ropy.  Does  Bishop  Lowth  say  so  ?  Not 
at  all.  His  words  are,  "  In  Hebrew,  also,  the  wine  has  its 
name  (shekhar)  from  its  remarkable  inebriating  quality." 
showing  that  the  very  name  itself  implies  that  the  liquor 
denoted  by  it  is  inebriating.  Does  Mr.  Parsons  produce  a 
single  instance  in  which  "atf  (shekhar)  denotes  a  liquor  that 
is  not  intoxicating? 

He  does  indeed  cite  two  passages  from  scripture,  in  which 
he  maintains  that  the  term  shekhar  denotes  a  sweet  or  palm 
9 


64 

wine.  Grant  it.  Does  this  prove  that  it  is  not  intoxicating  ? 
Do  not  his  own  authorities  for  rendering  13»  (shekhar)  palm 
wine,  inform  us  that  this  sweet  palm  wine  was  powerfully 
inebriating  ?  But  let  us  examine  the  texts  referred  to  by 
Mr.  Parsons,  and  his  comments  on  them.  The  first  is  in 
Isaiah — "They  shall  not  drink  wine  with  a  song,  strong 
drink  shall  be  bitter  to  them  that  drink  it."  "  That  shacar 
in  scripture  is  sweet,"  says  Mr.  P.,  "  is  evident  from  the 
contrast  expressed  in  Isaiah  xxiv.  9,  <  strong  drink  shall  be- 
come bitter.'  Lowth  translates  the  verse,  <  The  palm  wine 
shall  be  bitter,'  and  paraphrases  it,  l  all  enjoyment  shall 
cease,  the  sweetest  wine  shall  become  bitter ;'  the  contrast 
between  shacar  t  sweet'  and  the  term  <  bitter'  is  here  placed 
in  striking  opposition."  It  is  true,  that  the  paraphrase 
places  the  contrast  between  shekhar  and  the  term  'bitter'  in 
striking  opposition  ;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  the  use  of  the 
Hebrew  word  "id;  rendered  by  Lowth  'shall  be  bitter,'  does 
not  determine  any  thing  in  regard  to  the  luscious  nature  of 
shekhar,  for  we  find  in  Exodus  xv.  23,  that  the  children  of 
Israel  could  not  drink  of  the  waters  of  Marah,  for  they  were 
bitter,  in  Hebrew,  O"??  (marim,)  both  words  TO*  and  nD,tl? 
being  derived  from  *vro.  Are  we  to  infer  from  the  use  of 
D75  in  Exodus  xv.  23,  that  water  « is  a  sweet,  luscious, 
satisfying  drink"  ?  The  truth  is  that  the  word  TO*  used  by 
the  prophet  Isaiah  would  apply  not  only  to  palm  wine,  but 
with  equal  propriety  to  any  other  drink  capable  of  producing 
exhilaration  of  spirits ;  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  whole 
passage  being,  that  during  the  terrible  judgments  of  God  de- 
nounced by  the  prophet,  those  who  were  subjected  to  them 
would  be  in  such  bitterness  of  soul,  that  they  would  have 
no  inclination  to  indulge  in  merriment  and  drinking,  even 
could  they  command  the  wine  and  other  strong  drinks,  that 


65 

are  wont  to  accompany  the  song.  And  this  view  of  the 
text  accords  with  the  comment  of  Lowth,  whose  words  are, 
"  Those  who  can  command  wine  under  this  scarcity  will 
have  no  heart  to  drink  it,  nor  will  it  be  able  to  cheer  their 
souls  under  such  afflictions."  The  bitterness  therefore  spo- 
ken of  by  the  prophet  has  reference  not  to  a  change  in  the 
taste  of  the  liquor,  but  to  the  sorrow  of  heart,  which  even 
the  use  of  their  ordinary  stimulating  drinks  would  not  be 
able  to  remove  but  would  serve  rather  to  increase.  The 
Hebrew  verb  Tin  and  its  derivatives,  are  not  unfrequently 
used  to  express  sorrow  of  heart,  as  in  Job  vii.  11,  xxvii.  2, 
Isaiah  xxxviii.  15, 17,  Ezekiel  xxvii.  31,  &c.  But  admitting 
that  in  Isaiah  xxiv.  9,  the  term  is  opposed  to  and  suggested 
by  the  sweetness  of  the  drink  denoted  by  1%ti  (shekhar,) 
does  it  follow  that  this  drink  is  not  intoxicating  ?  And  if  it 
be  intoxicating,  it  is  with  the  strictest  propriety  called  "strong 
drink." 

The  other  text  to  which  Mr.  P.  refers,  in  support  of  his 
opinion  respecting  the  import  ofTJi?  (shekhar),  is  Numbers 
xxviii.  7,  compared  with  Exodus  xxix.  40  :  tj»  (shekhar)  in 
the  one  passage  being  used  for  yz  (yayin)  in  the  other.  From 
this  circumstance,  and  also  from  the  fact  that  shekhar  does 
sometimes  denote  palm  wine,  Mr.  Parsons  would  infer  that 
it  always  has  this  meaning. 

The  use  of  j;:  (yayin)  in  Exodus  xxix.  40,  is  beyond  doubt 
conclusive  as  to  the  point,  that  in  Numbers  xxviii  7,  "Ot? 
(shekhar)  denotes  wine;  and  if  it  determines  any  thing  in  re- 
gard to  the  kind  of  wine,  it  proves  that  the  wine  denoted  by 
shekhar  in  this  passage  was  made  from  the  juice  of  the 
grape;  as  beyond  all  dispute  yayin  denotes  this  description 
of  wine.  That  shekhar,  in  the  instance  before  us,  signifies 
wine,  is  no  proof  that  it  never  meant  any  thing  but  wine; 


66 

but  on  the  contrary,  when  taken  in  connexion  with  the 
meaning  of  this  term  in  other  passages  of  scriptures,  serves 
to  confirm  the  definition  of  shekhar  given  by  Jerome,  viz. 
that  it  "signifies  every  drink  that  can  intoxicate."  Accord- 
ing to  this  author,  however,  and  others,  when  used  in  con- 
nexion with  yayin  (wine),  shekhar  signifies  any  intoxicating 
liquor  other  than  wine  ;*  and  thus  the  term  is  explained  by 
Onkelos,  and  Philo-Judseus,  the  latter  known  to  be  a  cotem- 
porary  of  our  Saviour,  the  former  probably  so. 

The  words  "n#i  vi  wine  and  strong  drink,  in  Leviticus 
x.  9,  Onkelos  renders  by  the  phrase  'noi  "ran  wine  and 
whatever  can  intoxicate.  See  Targum  of  Onkelos,  in  Wal- 
ton's Polyglot.  Philo  refers  several  times  to  the  command 
given  to  Aaron,  "  Do  not  drink  wine  nor  strong  drink,  thou 
nor  thy  sons  with  thee,  when  ye  go  into  the  tabernacle  of 
the  congregation,"  and  for  IDE?  (shekhar),  strong  drink, 
he  commonly  uses  the  Greek  term  derived  from  it,  viz. 
dixsga,  but  in  his  treatise  on  Monarchy  he  gives  as  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase  *DaM  i^  "wine  and  any  other 
intoxicating  drink,"  ^  ofvov  yfyrl  <n  6tX>o  iriveiv  fjt^uC/jia.  Thus 
again  in  his  treatise  on  Drunkenness,  in  quoting  the  answer 
of  Hannah  to  Eli,  in  1  Samuel  i.  15,  he  expresses  the  import 
of  shekhar  by  the  Greek  term  pMvaiiu,  which  beyond  all 
cavil  denotes  an  intoxicating  liquor.  This  explanation  of 
shekhar,  given  by  Philo,  is  confirmed  by  Origen,  who,  in 
his  comment  on  Lev.  x.  9,  says,  that  "  in  the  vernacular 
appellation  of  the  divine  scripture  it  is  usual  to  name  every 

*  Saepe  diximus  esse  vinum  quod  de  Tineis  fit :  sycerain  autem  omnera  po- 
ionem  quae  inebriate  potest  et  statum  mentis  evertere,  quam  proprie  Aquila 
ebrietatem  transtulit  sive  ilia  frumento  sive  ordeo,  sive  mileo  pomorumque  suce, 
et  palmarum  fructu,  et  alio  quolibet  geuere  conficitur.     Jerome.  Isaiah  xxviii.  7. 


67 

drink  which  can  intoxicate,  she/char."  See  seventh  homily 
on  Leviticus.* 

The  translators  of  the  Septuagint,  and  also  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus,  in  the  passage,  "  Wine  is  a  mocker,  strong  drink 
is  raging,"  Proverbs  xx.  1,  use  for  "oh*  (shekhar)  the  Greek 
term  pi&r),  drunkenness ;  and  to  express  the  import  of  shek- 
har, Jerome  frequently  uses  the  Latin  word  ebrietas,  drunk- 
enness :  and  we  make  bold  to  assert,  that  in  no  one  passage 
of  scripture,  can  it  be  shown,  that  the  term  shekhar  is  used 
to  denote  any  other  drink  than  one  that  can  intoxicate  ;  and 
that  not  one  single  authority  can  be  adduced  in  support  of 
the  assertion  of  Mr.  Parsons,  "  that  undrugged  shacar  was 
not  a  fermented  drink."     pp.  255-G  of  Anti-Bacchus. 

To  strengthen  his  assertion  with  respect  to  the  meaning 
of  shekhar,  Mr.  Parsons  adverts  to  the  fact  that  this  term, 
and  the  Arabic,  Greek,  Latin,  French  and  English  words 
for  sugar,  have  all  sprung  from  the  same  root,  and  that  in 
the  Arabic  language,  the  same  word  denotes  "  both  honey 
and  palm  wine,"  p.  254.  But  may  not  all  this  be  accounted 
for,  from  the  circumstance,  that  the  various  intoxicating 
drinks,  and  different  kinds  of  honey  and  sugar  made  from 
the  juices  of  fruits,  trees,  and  sugar  cane,  are  obtained  from 
the  same  sources,  the  sirupy  or  solid  products  by  concentra- 
trating  the  saccharine  properties  of  these  juices,  and  the 
liquors  by  converting  them  into  alcohol,  the  very  process  in 

*  The  homilies  of  this  celebrated  writer,  who  flourished  in  the  first  half  of  the 
third  century,  were  translated  into  Latin  by  Rufinus,  a  distinguished  father  in 
the  Latin  Church,  and  who  died  A.D.  410.  As  the  original  is  lost,  we  quote 
from  the  Latin  the  following  passage,  which  it  will  be  seen  at  once  is  free  from 
all  ambiguity.  "Lex  evidens  datur,  et  sacerdotibus  et  principi  sacerdotum,  ut 
cum  accedunt  ad  altare,  vino  abstineant,  et  omni  potu  qaod  inebriare  potest, 
quid  scripturae  divinae  appellatione  vernacula,  sicerom  (shekhar)  moris  est 
nominare." 


68 

the  latter  case  greatly  diminishing  if  not  altogether  destroy- 
ing the  sugary  portions  of  the  juices.  How  idle  therefore  to 
infer  that  shekhar  denotes  "  a  sweet,  luscious  satisfying 
liquor,"  and  one  that  will  not  intoxicate,  because  a  cognate 
Arabic  term  denotes  both  honey  or  sugar  and  palm  wine  ;* 
especially  when  the  Hebrew  term  occurs  more  than  twenty 
times  in  the  scriptures,  and  in  not  one  single  instance,  is 
there  the  least  evidence  that  it  denotes  any  other  than  an 
intoxicating  liquor,  unless  the  express  permission  to  drink  it 
found  in  the  scriptures,  is  to  be  taken  as  evidence  that  it 
was  not  intoxicating  ;  as  is  done  by  Mr.  Parsons.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  are  numerous  passages  which  prove  in- 
contestably  that  shekhar,  whether  it  is  palm  wine  or  barley 
wine,  or  some  other  drink,  is  an  intoxicating  liquor.  See 
Leviticus  x.  9,  Numbers  vi.  3,  1  Samuel  i.  15. 

In  the  passages  just  mentioned,  yayin  and  shekhar  are 
both  used,  and  together  they  denote  every  species  of  intoxi- 
cating drink.  If  further  evidence  is  wanted  in  regard  to  the 
import  of  shekhar,  it  may  be  found  by  consulting  Wetstein's 
Greek  Testament,  who  quotes  the  Greek  scholiast  as  saying, 
2fxspa  <5s  £tf<n  ita.\i  to  /jle'^v  i/iv  itoistv  <5uva/jisvov,  oik  ov  <5s  s|  a(A#s'Xou, 
"  Sicera  is  every  drink  capable  of  producing  intoxication, 
that  is  not  made  from  the  vine."  Hesychius  defines  slxs^a 
to  be  oi'vog  tfufjifjuysjs  r^od^adi  rj  <ffav  cr6f/a  sproioiJv  ^.i&yjv,  fjwq  !§  afxtfe'Xou 

*  Sukkar  is  the  Arabic  terra  for  sugar,  and  it  also  signifies  date  wine  :  and 
so  do  sukr  and  sakar :  but  Mr.  Parsons  seems  to  have  overlooked  the  fact,  that 
these  terms  denote  inebriating  liquor  in  general,  and  that  the  palm  wine  denoted 
by  them  is  itself  inebriating.  From  the  same  root,  with  these  terms  come  sak- 
rat,  drunkenness,  sikkir,  always  drunk,  miskir,  apt  to  be  drunk,  musakkar, 
overcome  of  drunkenness,  &c.  See  the  Lexicons  of  Golius  and  Richardson. 
And  from  this  statement  the  reader  may  learn  what  aid  in  establishing  his  po- 
sition Mr.  Parsons  is  likely  to  receive,  from  an  examination  of  the  Arabic  cog- 
nate terms  of  shekhar. 


69 

<5i,  tfxsuatfTo^,  tfuvfls-rov :  "  Sicera  is  wine  mingled  with  sweet 
spices,  or  every  drink  causing  drunkenness,  but  not  made 
from  the  vine  ;  prepared,  compound."  Suidas  explains  the 
term  aixsgu  in  the  same  manner.  His  words  are,  axevairlv 
<7rof/,a,  xai  tfag'  'E/3^aiois  outoj  Xsyu'fxsvov  (xs'durffxa,  o/voj  tfufxfii^e  '^cSutf- 
(jiatfiv :  "  a  prepared  drink  ;  and  with  the  Hebrews  this  name 
is  given  to  an  intoxicating  liquor,  viz.  wine  intermingled  with 
sweet  spices."  He  does  not  say  mixed  with  intoxicating 
drugs,  but  sweet  spices  or  perfumes ;  and  he  employs  the 
very  term  ^urfpa  that  is  used  by  the  Seventy  in  their  version 
of  Exodus  xxx,  34,  respecting  the  materials  from  which  the 
ointment  for  the  service  of  the  sanctuary  was  made  accord- 
ing to  the  command  of  God. 

The  explanation  of  the  word  sicera,  given  by  Suidas  and 
Hesychius  is  in  our  apprehension  confirmed  by  a  comparison 
of  Prov.xxiii.  29,  30  :  "Who  hath  wo  .  .  .  they  that  tarry 
long  at  the  wine,  they  that  go  to  seek  mixed  wine"  with  Is. 
v.  22  :  "  Wo  to  them  that  are  mighty  to  drink  wine,  and  men 
of  strength  to  mingle  strong  drink:''  The  «  mixed  wine,'  in 
the  one  passage  corresponding  to  shekhar  "  strong  drink,"  in 
the  other.  The  use  too  of  the  phrases  ofvog  tfu^fju^s  rfiuapatfi, 
and  on/os  ffuf*|xiys;s  f/JuiT(j.atfi  to  express  the  import  of  rfixs^a 
shows  that  neither  Suidas  nor  Hesychius  understood  this 
term  to  denote  merely  palm  wine ;  for  it  is  not  to  be  denied, 
that  ofvos  is  the  Greek  term  Tor  wine  in  general,  and  denotes 
in  the  first  place  wine  made  from  grapes,  and  secondly,  any 
fermented  liquor  made  in  imitation  of  it,  whether  from  fruits 
or  grain.  That  "Ot?  denotes  a  liquor  made  from  grain,  as 
well  as  from  the  juice  of  the  grape  and  the  date  and  other 
fruits,  appears  from  the  use  of  this  term  in  the  Mishna  or 
Oral  Law  of  the  Jews,  in  which  it  is  employed  to  denote  an 
intoxicating  drink  made  by  the  Medes  from  grain :    and 


70 

Maimonides  and  Bartenora,*  inform  ns  that  it  was  for  the 
most  part  made  from  wheat  or  barley. 

Denning  the  import  of  ittf,  Maimonides  says  that  "it  is 
an  inebriating  drink,  made  from  many  varieties,  from  mace- 
rated wheat,  barley  and  other  things."  Bartenora  explains 
the  phrase  non  13*,  the  shekhar  of  Medes,  to  be  a  beer 
which  they  made  from  wheat  or  barley  steeped  in  water.  See 
the  Mishna  by  Snrrenhnsins,  Book  II.  142. 

From  the  form  of  expression  "  shekhar  of  the  Medes," 
used  in  the  Mishna,  and  from  the  comments  of  Maimonides 
and  Barteonra,  it  is  probable  that  this  shekhar  differed  from 
that  in  common  use  among  the  Jews,  in  being  made  from 
grain  and  not  from  the  juices  of  fruits ;  yet  this  application 
of  the  term  shekhar  to  the  different  varieties  of  intoxicating 
drink,  made  both  from  fruits  and  grain,  shows  that  the  pri- 
mitive and  essential  meaning  of  shekhar  is  that  of  a  liquor 
which  can  intoxicate.  None  of  the  numerous  authorities 
which  we  have  cited  give  the  most  distant  intimation  that  it 
ever  denotes  any  thing  else  than  an  intoxicating  drink,  al- 
though in  other  respects  there  is  some  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  the  kind  of  drink  intended.  It  does,  however,  by  no 
means  follow,  that  because  it  is  intoxicating,  it  must  neces- 
sarily intoxicate  the  persons  who  use  it.  When  drunk  in 
small  cuiantity,  and  especially  when  diluted  with  water,  it 
may  exhilirate  the  spirits,  and  yet  no  unnatural  excitement 
be  produced. 

To  show  that  the  verb  shakhar  does  not  always  imply  the 

*  Maimonides  nourished  in  the  twelfth  century,  and  of  all  their  Rabbins  he 
is  held  in  the  highest  estimation  by  the  Jews.  Obadiah  de  Bartenora  is  also 
distinguished  for  his  commentary  on  the  entire  Mishna,  which  he  commenced 
in  Italy,  and  completed  in  Palestine,  where  he  died  in  the  year  1520  of  the 
Christian  era.     See  Wolfii  Bibliotheca,  1  vol. 


71 

use  of  an  intoxicating  drink,  Mr.  Parsons  refers  to  the  ex- 
pression made  use  of  in  Genesis,  in  reference  to  Joseph 
and  his  brethren,  "  they  drank  and  were  merry."  Mr.  P. 
argues,  and  correctly  so,  that  the  Hebrew  term  does  not  ne- 
cessarily imply  that  they  were  drunk  ;  and  from  this  circum- 
stance, and  from  the  character  of  Joseph,  he  comes  to  the 
very  logical  inference,  that  they  could  not  have  used  an  in- 
toxicating liquor.  But  is  there  really  any  greater  difficulty 
in  being  made  merry  by  an  intoxicating  drink  than  by  one 
that  will  not  intoxicate  ?  And  if  not,  it  is  all  idle  to  argue 
that  they  did  not  use  an  inebriating  liquor,  unless  the  use  of 
it  in  any  quantity,  however  small,  must  of  necessity  produce 
intoxication. 

"  But  I  must  maintain,"  says  Mr.  P.  "  that  undrugged 
shacar  denotes  a  weak  sweet  palm  wine."  Doubtless  he 
must  do  so,  or  else  his  whole  scheme  falls  to  the  ground. 
Shall  we  however  trust  to  the  reasoning  of  Mr.  Parsons 
with  respect  to  the  import  of  a  Hebrew  term,  rather  than  to 
the  authority  of  the  translators  of  the  Septuagint,  of  Aquila, 
of  Philo  Jndaeus,of  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase,  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian writers,  Origcn,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Chrysostom  and 
Jerome,  of  the  Greek  lexicographers,  Hesychius  and  Snidas, 
of  the  Greek  Scholiast,  and  of  the  learned  annotators  on  the 
Oral  Law  of  the  Jews,  Maimonides  and  Bartenora,  and  of 
the  Mishna  itself  ?  Add  to  all  these  authorities  the  fact,  not 
denied  by  Mr.  Parsons,  that  shekhar  does  in  repeated  in- 
stances in  the  scripture  denote  an  intoxicating  liquor,  and 
also  another  fact  of  no  less  importance,  that  in  not  a  single 
instance  is  there  the  least  intimation  that  the  term  shekhar 
is  to  be  understood  in  a  sense  different  from  its  acknowledged 
import  in  sundry  passages,  as  denoting  an  inebriating  drink 
of  one  description  or  another  ;  and  then  let  the  reader,  if  he 
10 


72 

can,  believe  with  Mr.  Parsons  that  shekhar  is  a  weak  sweet 
palm  wine  incapable  of  producing  intoxication.  Could  it  be 
shown,  what  is  far  from  the  fact,  that  shekhar  always  meant 
palm  wine,  of  what  avail  would  it  be  ?  The  palm  wine 
mentioned  by  Chrysostom  and  Pliny,  and  made  from  the 
fruit  of  the  palm  or  date  tree,  is  represented  by  them  as  ex- 
ceedingly intoxicating.*  And  equally  so  is  palm  wine  ob- 
tained at  the  present  day  in  India  from  the  sap  of  the  palm 
tree.  Speaking  of  the  tala,  one  species  of  the  palm,  Sir 
William  Jones  says,  "  the  liquor  extracted  from  the  tree  is 
the  most  seductive  and  j)^nicious  of  i?itoxicating  vegetable 
juices  ;  when  just  drawn  it  is  as  pleasant  as  Pouhon  water 
fresh  from  the  spring,  and  almost  equal  to  the  best  mild 
champaigne."  vol.  ii.  p.  117.  None  of  these  writers  speak 
of  the  admixture  of  intoxicating  drugs,  by  which  alone  Mr. 
Parsons  imagines,  that  palm  wine  can  be  rendered  inebria- 
ting ;  and  yet  they  describe  it  as  causing  stupor  and  inebria- 
tion, and  as  being  most  pernicious  and  seductive.  Can  there 
be  any  impropriety  in  calling  such  a  drink  "  strong  drink  ?" 
If  it  be  a  fact,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Parsons,  on  the  authority 
of  Mr.  Beaumont,  in  his  Essay  on  Alcohol,  that  palm  wine 
contains  only  four  per  cent,  of  spirit,"  Anti-Bacchus,  p.  256, 
it  may  still  with  propriety  be  called  "  strong  drink."  We  pre- 
sume that  Mr.  Parsons,  and  all  who  agree  with  him,  will  be 
unwilling  to  admit  that  the  best  wines  of  France,  unless  di- 
luted with  two  or  three  times  their  bulk  of  water,  are  rnot 
intoxicating ;  or  that  ale  and  porter,  with  equal  quantities 
of  water,  are  not  intoxicating ;  and  that  unless  they  are 
mixed  with  drugs  it  is  improper  to  call  them  strong  drinks : 
and  yet,  according  to  the  table  of  the  respective  strengths  of 

*  See  page  476  of  this  vol. 


73 

different  liquors  given  by  Mr.  P.  p.  164,  porter  contains  less- 
alcohol  than  palm  wine :  the  quantity  in  palm  wine  being 
4.79,  and  that  in  porter  4.00.  Mr.  Parsons  must  take  back 
this  admission  that  palm  wine  contains  even  four  per  cent,  of 
alcohol,  or  his  cause  is  ruined,  for  porter  contains  but  four  per 
cent.,  and  yet  it  is  condemned  by  Mr.  P.  as  a  vile  and  per- 
nicious drink.  Yes,  he  must  maintain,  as  is  done  on  pp. 
255-G,  that  the  palm  wine  denoted  by  shekhar  was  the 
unfermented  juice  of  the  palm  tree,*  "  and  the  fact  that  it 

*  In  his  account  of  inebriating  drinks,  Bacchus  p.  193,  Mr.  Grindrod  remarks 
that  "  the  unfermented  juice  of  the  palm  tree  is  described  by  a  celebrated  oriental 
scholar  as  the  'palm  wine'  of  the  poets."  This  statement  is  founded  upon  a  pas- 
sage in  Forbes'  Oriental  Memoirs,  p.  24,  in  which,  speaking  of  the  cocoanut  tree 
(a  species  of  the  palm),  he  says,  "  A  small  incision  being  made,  there  oozes  in 
gentle  drops  a  cool  pleasant  liquor  called  tarce  or  toddy,  the  palm  wine  of  the 
poets.  This,  when  first  drawn,  is  cooling  and  salutary,  but  when  fermented 
and  distilled  produces  an  intoxicating  spirit."  That  Mr.  Forbes  intended  to  say 
that  this  liquor  was  thus  called  before  fermentation,  we  are  very  much  disposed 
to  question  :  and  we  think  that  nothing  farther  can  be  inferred  from  his  words  than 
that  the  palm  wine  of  the  poets  is  obtained  from  the  juice  of  the  cocoanut  tree, 
a  choice  species  of  the  palm.  In  this  opinion  we  are  confirmed  by  the  definitions 
given  of  the  words  tali  and  talki  by  H.  H.  Wilson,  of  the  University  of  Oxford, 
in  his  Dictionary  of  the  Sanscrit  Language,  published  at  Calcutta  in  1832,  under 
the  patronage  of  the  then  President  of  the  Asiatic  Society  of  Bengal.  Tali  he 
defines  to  be  "  the  spirituous  juice  of  the  palm,  the  common  toddy:n  and  Talki, 
"  toddy  or  the  fermented  exudation  of  the  palm  trees."  Not  the  most  distant  in- 
timation is  given  that  the  term  toddy  ever  denotes  the  unfermented  juice  of  the 
palm.  This  explanation  of  the  word  toddy  is  farther  confirmed  by  the  state- 
ments of  Dr.  Scudder,  American  missionary  at  Ceylon,  in  his  Description  of 
the  Value  and  Uses  of  the  Palmyra  Tree,  pp.  24 — 25  of  the  Missionary  Herald 
for  1839.  "  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  ever  was  in  so  vile  a  place,  so  far  as  drunk- 
enness was  concerned,  and  among  so  many  drunkards The  principal 

cause  of  drunkenness  among  them  is  toddy,  the  fermented  juice  of  the  palmyra 
tree The  tree  yields  a  sweet  and  very  pleasant  juice,  which  in  its  un- 
fermented state  is  called  kudupperneyT  Let  it  be  recollected  that  it  is  toddy 
which  Forbes  says  is  the  palm  wine  of  the  poets:  of  course  this  wine  must  be 


74 

was  imdragged  shacar  or  sweet  wine  demonstrates  that  it 
was  not  a  fermented  alcoholic  drink."  A  demonstration 
indeed  !  But  let  it  pass,  and  let  us  direct  our  attention  to 
what  Mr.  Grindrod  has  to  say  respecting  the  import  of 
shekhar. 

Mr.  Grindrod  does  not  limit  the  signification  of  shekhar 
to  palm  wine  as  is  done  by  Mr.  Parsons,  yet  he  maintains  that 
it  does  not  always  denote  an  intoxicating  liquor.  His  words 
are,  "  The  term  shekar,  in  some  of  its  variations  at  least, 
does  not  uniformly  or  necessarily  refer  to  a  state  of  intoxica- 
tion, or  even  to  an  inebriating  beverage.  Parkhurst  how- 
ever concludes  shekar  to  refer  to  intoxicating  or  inebriating 
liquor  in  general."  p.  381.  And  who  that  has  any  know- 
ledge of  its  import  does  not  do  the  same  ?  Mr.  G.  again 
says,  that  the  learned  Edward  Leigh,  in  his  Critica  Sacra, 
thus  remarks  :  "  This  word  (shekar*)  is  not  always  taken  in 
the  worst  part,  but  is  used  for  large  drinking  unto  mirth,  but 
with  sobriety."  Who  questions  the  truth  of  this  remark? 
And  yet  how  does  it  prove  that  shekhar  could  not  intoxicate 
if  used  freely  ? 

Again  Mr.  Grindrod  observes,  "  The  words  shekhar  and 
methuo,  in  some  of  their  significations,  may  be  applied  in 
reference  to  that  state  of  mind  and  body  produced  by  such 
lawful  indulgence  in  unfermented  wine,  or  nutritious  food 
of  any  kind,  as  imparts  a  pleasing  and  satisfied  state  both  of 
body  and  mind."  p.  381.  For  this  statement  he  cites  no  au- 
thority, and  the  verbs  shakhar  and  methuo  are  not  and  can- 
fermented.  Could  it  be  shown  that  among  some  of  the  tribes  of  Asia  or  of  Af- 
rica, the  same  term  was  sometimes  used  to  express  both  the  fermented  and  un- 
fermented juice  of  the  palm,  what  evidence  would  this  be  that  the  term  shekhar 
was  used  in  the  same  way,  even  granting  that  it  always  denoted  palm  wine  ? 

*  We  give  this  word  as  "  we  find  it  in"  Bacchus  p.  381,  on  which  page,  and 
elsewhere,  the  noun  shekhar  and  the  verb  shakhar  occur  one  for  the  other. 


75 

not  be  thus  employed :  for  unless  used  figuratively,  they  im- 
ply the  use  of  an  intoxicating  liquor,  although  they  do  not 
of  necessity  imply  any  excess  in  the  use  of  it,  but  merely,  as 
Leigh  expresses  it,  "large  drinking  unto  mirth,  but  with  so- 
briety." 

Again  Mr.  G.  says,  "  The  ancients  had  numerous  methods 
by  which  they  made  strong  yet  unintoxicating  drinks.  .  . 
Of  this  nature  probably  was  the  strong  drink  which  the 
children  of  the  Lord  were  allowed  to  partake  of  in  the  house 
appointed  by  God,  Deut.  xiv.  26."  p.  3S1.  From  this  pas- 
sage it  appears  that  Mr.  Grindrod  does  not  make  objection, 
as  does  Mr.  Parsons,  to  rendering  shekhar  by  the  phrase 
"  strong  drink,"  though  he  agrees  with  Mr.  P.  in  maintain- 
ing that  the  liquor  denoted  by  shekhar,  in  Deut.  xiv.  26,  was 
not  intoxicating.  The  reason  for  this  is  given  in  the  passage 
immediately  following  the  one  last  cited,  and  is  in  these 
words.  «  Whatever  was  its  composition,  it  could  not  have 
possessed  the  power  of  exciting  unholy  feelings  and  prac- 
tices, otherwise  the  God  of  holiness  would  not  have  sanc- 
tioned its  use."  Conclusive  reasoning  this !  When  the 
very  subject  of  inquiry  is,  whether  God  has  sanctioned  the 
moderate  use  of  drinks,  which,  when  taken  immoderately, 
produce  intoxication,  it  is  assumed  as  a  self-evident  truth, 
that  he  would  not  have  sanctioned  its  use,  if  it  had  been  pos- 
sessed of  any  intoxicating  quality.  If  this  be  so,  how  per- 
fectly idle  was  it  to  write  a  whole  volume,  as  Mr.  Grindrod 
has  done,  to  establish  a  self-evident  proposition. 

Whether  shekhar  does  or  does  not  always  denote  a  liquor 
that  can  intoxicate,  we  submit  without  further  remark  to 
the  judgment  of  our  readers. 


76 

IV.  The  fourth  subject  of  inquiry  has  respect  to  the  posi- 
tion, "  That  wines  which  could  j)roducc  intoxication  were 
not  allowed  to  be  used  at  any  of  the  Jewish  festivals." 

On  this  subject  Mr.  Grindrod  observes,  "  The  temperance 
observed  at  these  festivals  may  be  inferred  not  only  from 
the  nature  of  the  occasion,  but  from  the  character  of  the  pro- 
fessed people  of  God,  as  distinguished  from  that  of  the  sur- 
rounding heathens.  .  .  .  The  use  of  fermented  drink,  doubt- 
less, would  have  been  a  dangerous  source  of  temptation, 
&c.  .  .  .  and  it  is  inconsistent  with  divine  goodness  to  sup- 
pose that  he  would  institute  festivals  commemorative  of  his 
own  glorious  power  and  benevolence,  which  would  offer 
any  kind  of  temptation  to  his  fallible  creatures  to  deviate 
from  the  paths  of  rectitude  and  sobriety."  pp.  362-5.  On  this 
subject  also  Mr.  Parsons  says,  "  It  may  be  objected,  that  as 
the  Jews  were  allowed  the  use  of  wine  at  some  of  their 
feasts,  it  is  evident  that  the  Supreme  did  not  expect  all  his 
worshippers  to  abstain.  To  this  we  reply  that  there  were 
two  sorts  of  wine  and  sweet  drinks :  the  one  unfermented 
and  innocuous,  the  other  drugged  and  inebriating.  When, 
therefore,  wine  was  permitted,  the  Jews  knew,  from  the  be- 
nevolent character  of  the  Deity  who  gave  the  permission, 
that  the  drink  allowed  was  '  the  pure  blood  of  the  grape  ;' 
and  when  wine  or  sweet  drink  was  prohibited,  they  also 
knew,  from  the  purity,  and  pity,  and  kindness  of  their  di- 
vine Legislator,  that  the  beverage  was  that  which  was  ine- 
briating."  Anti-Bacchus,  p.  2S8. 

With  the  mode  pursued,  by  both  these  authors,  of  arguing 
from  the  goodness  and  benevolence  of  God,  in  opposition  to 
the  plain  and  palpable  statements  of  his  holy  word,  we 
frankly  confess  we  have  no  patience.  It  argues  so  much 
self-confidence,  and  so  much  disrespect  for  the  revealed  will 


77 

of  God,  that  we  find  it  difficult  to  discuss  with  cool  and  be- 
coming temper  their  hasty  conclusions  and  reckless  asser- 
tions. Their  aim  would  seem  to  be  not  so  much  to  prove 
from  the  scripture  that  the  use  of  fermented  drinks  is  wrong, 
as  to  vindicate  the  scriptures  from  the  charge  of  countenanc- 
ing, in  the  least,  the  use  of  drinks  which  they  fancy  they 
have  ascertained  to  be  always  injurious  to  man  and  offen- 
sive to  God.  Hence  when  we  find  in  the  scriptures  such  a 
passage  as  that  contained  in  Deut.  xiv.  26:  "And  thou 
shalt  bestow  that  money  for  whatsoever  thy  soul  lusteth 
after,  for  oxen,  or  for  sheep,  or  for  ivinc,  or  for  strong  drink, 
or  for  whatsoever  thy  soul  desireth  ;  thou  shalt  eat  these  be- 
fore the  Lord  thy  God,  and  thou  shalt  rejoice,  thou  and  thy 
household  :"  we  are  told  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  wine 
and  strong  drink,  and  that  the  kind  spoken  of  in  this  "  so 
doubtful  a  passage,"  as  it  is  styled  by  Mr.  Grindrod,  p.  381, 
could  not  have  been  intoxicating,  for  "whatever  was  its 
composition,  it  could  not  have  possessed  the  power  of  exci- 
ting unholy  feelings  and  practices,  otherwise  the  God  of  holi- 
ness would  not  have  sanctioned  its  use."  p.  381.  That  is  to 
say,  it  is  so  undeniably  self-evident,  that  all  use  of  intoxica- 
ting liquor  as  a  drink,  is  so  utterly  inconsistent  with  sobriety, 
and  with  the  exercise  of  holy  and  devout  feelings,  that  God 
could  not  sanction  its  use,  and  therefore,  although  the  text 
in  Deut.  xiv.  26,  does  not  give  any  intimation  that  the  phrase 
"  wine  and  strong  drink"  is  to  be  understood  in  a  sense  dif- 
ferent from  that  in  which  these  words  are  used  in  Lev.  x.  9, 
*  Do  not  drink  wine  and  strong  drink,  thou  nor  thy  sons 
with  thee,  when  ye  go  into  the  tabernacle  of  the  congrega- 
tion, lest  ye  die ;  it  shall  be  a  statute  forever  throughout 
your  generations ;"  yet  the  mere  fact  that  they  were  allowed 
to  be  used  in  the  one  case,  and  forbidden  in  the  other,  is  to 


78 

be  regarded  as  evidence  that  entirely  different  kinds  of  drinks 
are  spoken  of  in  the  two  passages ;  as  if  drunkenness,  so 
severely  condemned  in  the  scriptures,  consisted  in  the  kind 
of  drink  made  use  of,  and  not  in  the  excessive  or  immode- 
rate use  of  one  that  can  intoxicate.  In  his  comments  on  the 
passage  in  Dent.,  Mr.  Grindrod  remarks,  "  The  strong  drink 
allowed  on  this  occasion  .  .  .  could  not,  in  any  degree,  in- 
terfere with  the  spiritual  worship,  with  which  it  was  more 
or  less  accompanied."  This  remark,  if  correct,  is  equally 
applicable  to  the  oxen  and  the  sheep,  and  whatever  else 
might  be  purchased  for  the  feast. 

These  articles  of  diet  therefore  could  have  presented  no 
temptation  to  excess ;  and  if  those  who  partook  of  them 
would  confine  themselves  to  the  use  of  oxen  and  sheep,  and 
whatever  their  souls  lusted  after,  there  could  be  no  possible 
danger  of  their  falling  into  the  sin  of  gluttony  ;  for,  to  use 
the  words  of  Mr.  Grindrod, "  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  divine 
goodness  to  suppose  that  he  would  institute  festivals  com- 
memorative of  his  own  glorious  power  and  benevolence, 
which  would  afford  any  kind  of  temptation  to  his  fallible 
creatures  to  deviate  from  the  paths  of  rectitude  and  sobriety." 
But,  says  Mr.  G.  "  the  temperate  and  of  course  moderate 
use  is  understood."  What  call  is  there  for  this  remark,  if 
"  the  strong  drink  allowed  on  this  occasion  could  not  in  any 
degree  interfere  with  the  spiritual  worship,"  &c?  Is  not  the 
very  limitation  an  admission  that  the  immoderate  use  of 
even  unintoxicating  drinks  can  and  will  interfere  with  spiri- 
tual worship,  and  with  the  exercise  of  holy  feelings  ?  And 
if  eating  the  flesh  of  oxen  and  of  sheep,  and  drinking  palm 
juice  and  grape  juice,  may  be  carried  so  far  as  to  produce 
surfeiting,  and  thus  render  the  worshippers  of  God  incom- 
petent to  the  proper  discharge  of  their  religious  duties,  what 


79 

becomes  of  the  argument  of  Mr.  G.  against  the  "  wine  and 
strong  drink"  mentioned  in  Deut.  xiv.  26,  being  intoxicating 
drinks,  derived  from  the  circumstance,  that  if  they  were  in- 
toxicating they  might  interfere  with  the  spiritual  worship 
usual  at  this  festival  ?  Does  not  the  use  of  rich  and  various 
viands  present  a  temptation  to  gluttony  similar  to  the  temp- 
tation to  drunkenness  presented  by  the  use  of  intoxicating 
drinks  ?  If  the  temperate  use  of  the  flesh  of  oxen  and  of 
sheep  and  of  unfermented  drinks  is  understood,  where  is  the 
difficulty  of  supposing  that  "  the  temperate  and  moderate 
use"  of  wine  and  strong  drink  is  also  understood,  even 
should  they  be  drinks  which,  if  taken  to  excess,  will  produce 
intoxication  ?  With  respect  to  "  the  wine  and  strong  drink" 
mentioned  in  Deut.  xiv.  26,  Mr.  Grindrod  farther  says,  "In 
conclusion  it  appears  improbable  that  the  strong  drink  used 
on  that  occasion  was  the  same  as  that  spoken  of  by  the  in- 
spired writer.  «  Wine  is  a  mocker,  strong  drink  is  raging, 
and  whosoever  is  deceived  thereby  is  not  wise^'  "  Prov.  xx.  1. 
And  why  improbable  ?  Because  the  "  wine  and  strong 
drink"  mentioned  in  the  latter  text  are  undeniably  intoxica^ 
ting,  and  if  there  is  no  difference  between  them  and  the  wine 
and  strong  drink  mentioned  in  Deut.;  these  also  must  be  in- 
toxicating, and  then  his  whole  scheme  is  ruined :  for  in  that 
case  God,  in  express  terms,  authorized  the  Jews  to  use  in- 
toxicating drinks  on  one  of  their  religious  festivals. 

If  the  wine  and  strong  drink  spoken  of  in  Deut.  xiv.  20, 
are  different  from  the  wine  and  strong  drink  mentioned  hi 
Prov.  xx.  1,  why  may  we  not  conclude  that  the  oxen,  and 
also  the  sheep,  are  of  a  different  species  from  those  mention^ 
ed  in  Isaiah  xxii.  13,  14?  "  And  behold  joy  and  gladness, 
slaying  oxen  and  killing  sheep,  eating  flesh  and  drinking 
wine,  let  us  eat  and  drink  for  to-morrow  we  shall  die.  And 
11 


80 

it  was  revealed  in  my  ears  by  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  Surely  this 
iniquity  shall  not  be  purged  from  you  till  ye  die,  saith  the 
Lord  God  of -Hosts." 

By  the  help  of  Mr.  Parsons'  logic  respecting  the  different 
kinds  of  wine  spoken  of  in  scripture,  we  may  argue  that 
when  the  flesh  of  sheep  and  oxen  were  permitted  to  be  used, 
the  Jews  knew,  from  the  benevolence  of  God,  that  it  was  of 
that  kind  of  flesh  which  could  not  surfeit  the  persons  who 
partook  of  it :  and  that  when  the  use  was  prohibited,  they 
knew  it  was  that  kind  of  flesh  on  which  riotous  eaters  were 
wont  to  glut  their  appetites. 

But  Mr.  G.,  apparently  somewhat  apprehensive  that  his 
readers  will  not  be  altogether  satisfied  with  his  account  of 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "wine  and  strong  drink"  in  this 
"  so  doubtful  a  passage,"  as  he  is  pleased  to  style  it,  remarks 
farther,  that  "  the  permission  to  drink  it  occurred  only  once  in 
the  year,  and  for  a  special  purpose."  But  did  Jehovah  really 
give  his  people  permission  to  indulge  once  a  year,  and  that 
too  at  a  religious  feast,  in  drinks,  the  vise  of  which  is  always 
injurious,  and  is  most  strictly  prohibited  on  all  other  occa- 
sions, and  which  cannot  fail,  according  to  our  author,  to  ex- 
cite unholy  feelings  ?  If  our  memory  serves  us,  this  conceit 
respecting  the  permission  referred  to  in  this  passage  origina- 
ted with  a  distinguished  writer  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic, 
and  has  been  as  inconsiderately  adopted  by  Mr.  Grindrod  as 
it  was  at  first  formed.*     The  permission  consisted  simply  in 

*  This  solution  of  the  matter  reminds  us  of  the  directions  respecting  the  use 
of  wine  given  in  the  Koran.  Among  the  precepts  of  the  Moslem  prophet  is  one 
strictly  enjoining  total  abstinence  from  wine  as  the  invention  of  the  devil,  ch.  v.; 
and  among  the  blessings  vouchsafed  to  his  followers,  it  is  promised  that  they 
shall  drink  wine  in  Paradise,  ch.  xlvii.  Doubtless  the  sanctity  of  the  place  and 
of  the  employment,  both  at  the  Jewish  feast  and  in  the  paradise  of  the  faithful, 


81 

this,  that  those  Jews,  who  resided  so  far  from  the  tabernacle, 
that  they  could  not  carry  their  tithes  to  the  place  where  ?it 
was  reared,  were  permitted  to  sell  them,  and  with  the  mo- 
ney to  purchase  whatever  things  they  preferred,  in  order  to 
keep  the  feast  at  the  appointed  place,  where  they  were  re- 
quired to  eat  before  the  Lord,  and  to  rejoice  with  their 
households.  To  make  this  a  permission  to  drink  "  wine  and 
strong  drink"  once  a  year,  involves  also  the  absurdity  of 
making  it  a  permission  to  feast  upon  sheep  and  oxen  once  a 
year.  On  this  passage,  Deut.  xiv.  26,  Mr.  Parsons  contents 
himself  with  referring  to  his  attempts  to  prove  that  the  wines 
among  the  Hebrews  were  unfermented,  and  that  the  term 
rendered  "  strong  drink"  in  our  version  was  "  weak,  sweet 

would  counteract  the  natural  tendency  of  the  wine,  and  render  it  perfectly  harm- 
less.    It  is  not  thus,however,  the  Mohammedan  doctors  endeavour  to  account  for 
the  discrepancy  between  the  commands  and  promises  of  their  prophet :  they  do 
it  by  saying  that  the  wine  of  Paradise  is  different  from  the  wine  drunk  by  men 
on  earth,  and  will  not  produce  intoxication.     It  appears,  therefore,  that  they 
were  not  ignorant  of  the  distinction  of  wines  into  intoxicating  and  those  not  in- 
toxicating; but  they  were  so  ignorant  as  to  suppose  that  unintoxicating  wines 
were  confined  to  Paradise.     How   much  wiser  answers  would  they  have  been 
able  to  give  to  cavilling  infidels,  had  they  only  been  acquainted  with  the  dis- 
tinctions made  by  our  authors  and  other  recent  writers  in  regard  to  wines  made 
from  the  vines  of  earth.     And  on  the  other  hand,  we  think  that  those  who  adopt 
the  views  of  our  authors,  would  find  more  explicit  authority  for  their  opinions 
in  the  Koran,  than  they  can  possibly  do  in  the  Bible,  especially  if  we  compare 
the  precepts  in  the  Koran  with  the  traditionary  sayings  of  Mohammed  recorded 
by  Thalebiensis,  and  given  by  Marracci,  in  his  most  valuable  Edition  and  Refu- 
tation of  the  Koran,  published  at  Padua  in  1698.     "  Moreover,  whatever  inebri- 
ates shall  be  esteemed  wine,  and  all  wine  is  prohibited.     God  has  cursed  wine, 
and  the  persons  drinking  it,  tasting  and  presenting  it  to  others,  buying  it,  selling 
it,  treading  grapes  and  expressing  it ;  and  also  the  persons  receiving  it,  or  eat- 
ing any  thing  bought  with  the  money  for  which  it  was  sold.     Shun  wine,  for  it 
is  the  key  to  all  evils."     See  Refutatio  Alcorani,  p.  237. 


82 

palm  wine"  utterly  incapable  of  producing  intoxication.  As 
we  have  already  examined  his  views  on  these  points,  we 
shall  take  no  farther  notice  of  his  remarks,  but  proceed  at 
once  to  adduce  some  direct  and  positive  evidence,  that  the 
"  wine  and  strong  drink"  used  on  this  occasion  were  intoxi- 
cating liquors.  With  perfect  safety  to  those  views  of  truth 
which  we  entertain,  we  might  follow  the  example  of  Mr. 
P.,  and  rest  the  decision  of  this  question  upon  what  has  been 
advanced  respecting  the  nature  of  the  ancient  wines,  and  the 
import  of  skekhar,  which,  in  the  passage  now  under  conside- 
ration, is  in  our  English  version  rendered  by  the  phrase  strong 
drink.  But  we  prefer  to  establish  our  positions  separately 
and  independently  of  each  other;  and  we  shall  therefore,  as 
briefly  as  we  can,  show  that  the  Jews  were  permitted  to  use 
intoxicating  drinks  at  their  feasts. 

In  the  execution  of  this  purpose,  we  shall  begin  with 
citing  several  different  passages  in  which  the  words  "  wine 
and  strong  drink,"  when  used  together,  do  beyond  all  possi- 
bility of  cavil  denote  intoxicating  liquors.  1  Samuel  i.  14, 
15,  "And  Eli  said  unto  her,  how  long  wilt  thou  be  drunken? 
put  away  thy  wine  from  thee.  And  Hannah  answered  and 
said,  No,  my  lord,  I  am  a  woman  of  a  sorrowful  heart,  I 
have  drunk  neither  wine  nor  strong  drink."  This  passage 
shows  that  the  words  "  wine  and  strong  drink"  not  only  de- 
note intoxicating  liquors,  but  they  denote  all  drinks  capable 
of  producing  intoxication ;  otherwise  her  having  abstained 
from  these  would  not  be  conclusive  as  to  the  point  whether 
she  were  drunken  or  not.  Proverbs  xxxi.  4,  5, "  It  is  not 
for  kings,  0  Lemuel,  to  drink  wine,  nor  for  princes  strong 
drink.  Lest  they  drink  and  forget  the  law,  and  pervert  the 
judgment  of  any  of  the  afflicted."  Isaiah  xxviii.  7,  8,  "But 
they  have  also  erred  through  wine,  and  through  strong  drink 


83 

are  out  of  the  way,  the  priest  and  the  prophet  have  erred 
through  drink,  they  are  swallowed  up  through  wine,  they 
are  out  of  the  way  through  strong  drink,  they  err  in  vision, 
they  stumble  in  judgment.  For  all  tables  are  full  of  vomit 
and  fllthiness,  so  that  there  is  no  place  for  them." 

No  one  can  doubt  that  in  these  passages  the  words  "  wine 
and  strong  drink"  denote  intoxicating  drinks,  and  none  other, 
and  if  in  Deut.  xiv.  2G,  these  words  do  not  denote  intoxica- 
ting drinks,  then  this  text  forms  an  exception  not  only  to 
those  just  cited,  but  also  to  every  other  in  the  scriptures,  in 
which  these  words  occur  in  like  connexion ;  as  any  one  may 
satisfy  himself  by  examining  the  following  passages.  Levi- 
ticus x.  9  ;  Numbers  vi.  3  ;  Deut.  xxix.  6  ;  Judges  xiii.  4,  7, 
14  ;  1  Samuel  i.  15  ;  Pro  v.  xx.  1  ;  xxxi.  4,  6  ;  Isaiah  v.  11, 
22;  xxiv.  9;  xxviii.  7;  xxix.  9;  lvi.  12;  Micah  ii.  11. 
These,  with  Deut.  xiv.  26,  are  all  passages  in  which  the 
words  yayin  and  shekhar,  wine  and  strong  drink,  occur  to- 
gether. 

Under  a  former  head,  we  showed  what  Philo  Judaeus  re- 
garded as  the  import  of  the  term  Tits  (shekhar),  viz.  that  it 
included  every  intoxicating  liquor  but  wine,  and  the  very 
form  of  expression  used  by  this  writer,  ^  ofvov  prpi  <n  ciXko 
an'vsiv  (xsOutf/xa, "  to  drink  neither  wine  nor  any  other  intoxica- 
ting drink,"  shows  that  he  had  no  other  idea  of  the  term 
on/os  (wine),  than  that  of  a  word  denoting  an  intoxicating 
drink.  And  surely  it  must  be  admitted  that  he  understood 
the  true  import  of  the  Greek  term  ofvog  (oinos),  and  of  the 
corresponding  Hebrew  one,  \\l  (yayin),  and  it  is  more  clearly 
evident,  from  his  remarks  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  trea- 
tise "  on  drunkenness,"  that  he  had  never  heard  of  the  dis- 
tinction of  wines  into  fermented  and  unfermented,  or  into 
intoxicating  and  those  not  intoxicating.     He  begins  with 


84 

observing,  "  The  sayings  of  other  philosophers  respecting 
drunkenness,  we  have,  as  far  as  in  our  power,  mentioned  in 
the  foregoing  treatise,  and  let  us  now  consider  what  were 
the  opinions  entertained  in  regard  to  it  by  the  in  all  things 
great  and  wise  lawgiver ;  for  frequently  in  his  laws  he 
makes  mention  of  wine  and  of  the  plant  producing  the  wine, 
viz.  the  vine,  and  some  he  permits  to  use  it,  to  others  he 
does  not  give  this  indulgence,  and  to  the  same  persons  it  is 
sometimes  allowed  and  sometimes  not  allowed  ;*  and  he  then 
mentions,  as  persons  belonging  to  this  last  named  class,  the 
priests,  and  those  who  take  upon  themselves  the  great  vow. 
And  again,  speaking  of  the  command  given  to  Aaron  and 
his  sons  respecting  the  use  of  wine  and  strong  drink,  he  ex- 
pressly says  that  the  prohibition  was  limited  to  the  time 
during  which  the  priests  were  engaged  in  the  discharge  of 
their  sacred  functions."  'Ev  S  xgovoj  rkaxrcu  rds  Ugas  "heiTovgyias 
s-ziTS-keTv.     IIEPI  M0NAPXIA2. 

In  all  this  there  is  no  intimation  of  two  kinds  of  wine  and 
two  kinds  of  strong  drink  ;  the  one  allowed  to  be  used,  and 
the  other  not ;  it  is  the  same  wine  and  the  same  kind  of 
strong  drink.  And  he  further  tells  us  that  the  ancient  Greeks 
"called  the  art  of  making  wine  (naivojxs'v»],  the  art  of  producing 
madness,  since  wine,  to  those  swallowing  it  immoderately, 
is  the  cause  of  insaneness  and  folly,"  p.  183,  and  yet  we 
perceive  that  Moses  the  great  lawgiver  of  the  Jews  permitted 
some  to  use  and  others  not,  and  yet  none  to  excess. 

*  Ta  fJtsv  <roj£  aXXois  s^rjfis'va  «£i  fAs'drjs,  ug  oiovrs  \\>  iv  tr\  itfo  TaCrrjs 
u*£(jLV-/]tf«(Jt'£v  /3i€Xw'  vuv;  5s  i-gntxs-^ufxsda  <n'va  <rw  iravra  ^eyaku  xai 
tfoipu  vofxo^sTT)  reegi  au<j%  SoxsT,  tfoXXa^oU  yo.g  ttjs  vo/xoOsfflag  o'/vou  xai  tou 
-ysvvuvTos  cpu-Tou  <rov  oi'vov  afjws'Xou  ^jafXS/ji-vyjTai*  xai  ToTg  (xsv  Sfwnvsiv  gVi- 
t^sVei,  tois  6'  oux  Epirjtfi,  xai  <rois  auToig  sVti  xai  \ki\.  x.  t.  X.  IIEPI 
M20H2. 


85 

But  we  have  another  witness,  also  a  Jew,  and  who  flour- 
ished not  less  than  two  hundred  years  before  the  Christian 
era  :  the  author  of  Ecclesiasticus,  whose  testimony  is  expli- 
cit and  to  the  point  as  to  the  character  of  the  wines  in  com- 
mon use  among  the  Jews. 

"Show  not  thy  valiantness  in  wine;  for  wine  hath  de- 
stroyed many.  The  furnace  proveth  the  edge  by  dipping  ; 
so  doth  wine  the  hearts  of  the  proud  by  drunkenness.  Wine 
is  as  good  as  life  to  a  man,  if  it  be  drunk  moderately ;  what 
life  is  there  to  a  man  that  is  without  wine  ?  for  it  was  made 
to  make  men  glad.  Wine  measurably  drunk,  and  in  sea- 
son, bringeth  gladness  of  the  heart,  and  cheerfulness  of  the 
mind:  but  wine  drunken  with  excess' maketh  bitterness  of 
the  mind,  with  brawling  and  quarrelling.  Drunkenness  in- 
creaseth  the  rage  of  a  fool  till  he  offend,  it  diminisheth 
strength  and  maketh  wounds."  Ecclesiasticus  xxxi.  25,30. 
This  passage  shows  most  clearly  that  the  Jews  knew  no- 
thing of  this  fanciful  distinction  of  wines  into  intoxicating 
and  unintoxicating,  and  that  when  in  the  Jewish  scriptures 
wine  is  mentioned,  we  are  to  understand  by  the  term,  a  li- 
quor that  can  intoxicate  if  drunk  to  excess,  and  which  will 
not  intoxicate  if  used  with  prudence  and  moderation.  And 
although  we  do  not  regard  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus  as 
canonical,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  views 
expressed  in  the  above  passage  are  the  views  contained  hi 
the  canonical  books  in  reference  to  the  nature,  effects  and 
use  of  wine.  Next  to  the  inspired  writers  on  the  subject 
under  discussion,  no  better  authority  could  possibly  be  pro- 
duced. 

We  had  before  shown  that  the  assertions  of  our  authors 
respecting  the  character  of  the  ancient  wines,  and  especially 
those  of  Greece  and  Rome,  were  without  foundation,  and 


86 

the  views  we  then  presented  are  most  fully  sustained  by  the 
extracts  we  have  given  from  Philo  Judaeus,  and  the  son  of 
Sirach,  and,  taken  together,  they  afford  an  irrefragable  ar- 
gument, that  both  in  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments  the 
words  rendered  ill  our  English  version  by  the  terms  "  wine  • 
and  strong  drink,"  always  denote  liquors  that  can  intoxi- 
cate, and  consequently  the  passage  in  Deut.,  so  often  already 
cited,  furnishes  conclusive  evidence  that  at  a  Jewish  festival, 
observed  in  connexion  with  the  payment  of  their  tithes,  they 
used  fermented  wines,  or,  in  other  words,  wines  capable  of 
producing  intoxication  if  drunk  immoderately.  "  And  thou 
shalt  bestow  that  money  for  whatsoever  thy  soul  lusteth  af- 
ter, for  oxen  or  for  slieep,  or  for  wine,  or  for  strong  drink, 
or  for  whatsoever  thy  soul  desireth,  and  thou  shalt  eat  there 
before  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  thou  shalt  rejoice,  thou  and 
thy  household."  And  we  have  also  shown  that  the  expla- 
nations given  by  Messrs  Grindrod  and  Parsons  involve  the 
grossest  absurdity.  Should  we  compare  Deut.  xiv.  26  with 
1  Samuel  i.  1 — 18,  we  shall  have  additional  evidence  that  at 
the  Jewish  feasts  they  were  permitted  to  use  intoxicating 
drinks.  That  they  were  permitted  to  use  wine  and  strong 
dfink  of  some  description  is  not  disputed,  the  question  has 
reference  simply  to  the  kind  of  wine  and  strong  drink.  In 
1.  Samuel  i.  1 — 18,  we  are  informed  that  Elkanah  and  his 
family  went  yearly  to  worship  and  sacrifice  unto  the  Lord 
of  Hosts  in  Shiloh  ;  and  that  on  one  of  these  occasions  Han- 
nah, the  wife  of  Elkanah,  wept  and  did  not  eat,  and  that  after 
they  had  eaten  and  drunk  (doubtless  the  things  mentioned 
in  Deut.  xiv.  26),  Hannah  rose  up,  and,  being  in  bitterness 
of  soul,  prayed  unto  the  Lord  and  wept  sore.  Eli  the  priest, 
observing  her,  and  not  knowing  the  state  of  her  mind,  said  to 
her,  "  How  long  wilt  thou  be  drunken,  put  away  thy  wine 


87 

from  thee  ;  and  she  answered  and  said,  No,  my  lord,  I  am 
a  woman  of  a  sorrowful  spirit,  I  have  drunk  neither  wine 
nor  strong  drink,  but  have  poured  out  my  soul  before  the 
Lord."     It  is  evident  from  the  whole  account,  that  Eli 
thought  Hannah,  having  indulged,  as  was  usual  on  this  fes- 
tival occasion,  in  the  drinking  of  wine,  had  drunk  to  excess, 
and  he  therefore  asks  her,  not  why  she  had  drunk  wine 
which  it  was  unlawful  to  use,  but  why  she  continued  to 
drink  until  she  had  become  drunken.     Of  Elkanah,  and  of 
the  rest  of  the  family,  it  is  testified  that  they  ate  and  drank, 
but  of  Hannah,  that  she  did  not  eat,  but  spent  the  time  in 
weeping  ;  and  when  Eli  charged  her  with  being  drunk,  she 
assured  him  that  her  conduct  was  not  owing  to  her  being 
overcome  with  wine,  for  she  had  drunk  none  of  the  "  wine 
and  the  strong  drink,"  which  it  was  customary  to  use  on 
these  occasions.     We  have  no  allusion  whatever,  in  all  this 
account,  of  the  yearly  feast  kept  at  Shiloh,  of  any  distinction 
into  wines  intoxicating  and  those  which  could  not  intoxicate. 
Let  us  now  examine  what  the  Jewish  Rabinical  writers 
say  respecting  the  nature  of  the  wine  in  use  among  the  Jews. 
In  the  Tract  on  Tithes,  Part  I.  of  the  Mishna,  it  is  said, "  that 
wine"  is  subject  to  tithe  "  from  the  time  it  is  purged,"  nsp^D 
i"Hjand  this  phrase  is  explained  by  Bartenora  to  signify  "from 
the  time  that  the  wine  shall  have  cast  off  the  kernels  during 
its  effervescence."     Maimonides  gives  a  similar  explanation. 
Surenhusius,  I.  p.  248.     It  was  of  this  tithe  of  the  wine 
that  the  Jews  were  to  drink  at  the  feast  mentioned  in  Deut. 
xiv.  26,  unless  the  distance  was  so  great  that  they  could  not 
conveniently  carry  it  with  them  to  the  place  where  the 
tabernacle  was  reared ;  in  which  case  they  were  permitted 
to  sell  it,  and  buy  other  wine.     If  then,  as  is  asserted  in 
the  Mishna,  wine  was  not  subject  to  tithe  until  it  was  fer- 
12 


88 

mented,  then  it  is  evident,  that  at  the  feast  of  which  we 
speak,  the  Jews  used  the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape, 
or,  in  other  words,  a  drink  which,  if  used  too  freely,  would 
intoxicate. 

On  the  subject  we  are  now  discussing,  we  have  shown, 
1.  That  the  reasonings  of  our  authors  are  absurd.  2.  That 
in  several  passages  of  scripture  the  words  "  wine  and  strong 
drink"  do  undeniably  signify  intoxicating  liquor  of  all  kinds. 
3.  That  a  comparison  of  Deut.  xiv.  26,  with  1  Samuel  i.  1 
— 15,  furnishes  at  the  very  least  a  strong  presumption,  that 
the  «  wine  and  strong  drink"  mentioned  in  the  former  pas- 
sage were  intoxicating.  4.  That  it  is  evident  from  the  passa- 
ges cited  from  the  writings  of  Philo  Judaeus,  and  from  the 
book  of  Ecclesiasticus,that  the  Jews  had  no  knowledge  of  any 
other  wines  than  such  as  could  intoxicate.  5.  That  wines 
were  not  tithed  till  they  were  fermented,  and  G.  That  it  ap- 
pears from  Deut.  xiv.  2G  and  the  context,  that  it  was  of  the 
tithes  of  their  wine  they  were  wont  to  drink,  when  they  eat 
before  the  Lord,  and  rejoiced  with  all  their  house.  We 
have  also  referred  to  all  the  passages  in  which  the  words 
wine  and  strong  drink  both  occur,  that  the  reader  may  the 
more  readily  examine  them  and  satisfy  himself,  whether  in  a 
single  instance  there  is  any  thing  in  the  context  to  warrant 
the  assertion  that  "  wine  and  strong  drink"  do  ever  denote 
liquors  that  cannot  intoxicate  ;  and  if  there  be  nothing  of  this 
kind  in  the  context  of  any  one  of  the  passages  cited,  then 
our  position  is  firmly  established,  and  that  of  our  authors 
overthrown.     Let  the  reader  judge. 

V.  The  next  subject  of  inquiry  is,  whether  the  law,  which 
prohibits  the  use  of  leaven  at  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  in- 
cludes a  prohibition  of  all  fermented  drinks. 


89 

The  position  that  it  does  is  distinctly  assumed  by  both  our 
authors,  as  is  evident  from  the  following  extracts.  "  At- 
tempts have  recently  been  made  to  show  that  this  prohibition 
extended  to  leavened  bread  only,  and  not  to  fermented  li- 
quors. A  slight  consideration  of  the  passage  in  question, 
exhibits  the  inconsistency  of  this  explanation  with  the  origi- 
nal object  of  the  festival."     Bacchus,  p.  363. 

"  As  for  the  wine  drunk  at  the  Passover,  we  have  the 
best  proof  that  it  was  not  fermented.  The  word  yon  (cho- 
mets),  in  Hebrew,  signifies  '  leaven,'  '  vinegar,'  and  every 
kind  of  fermentation Now  the  Jews  at  the  Pass- 
over were  commanded  to  have  no  leaven  in  their  houses ; 
and  they,  from  that  day  to  this,  understood  the  term  to  refer 
just  as  much  to  fermented  liquors  as  to  fermented  bread, 
and  therefore  at  the  Passover  were  exceedingly  careful  that 
no  fermented  wines  should  be  among  them."  Anti-Bac- 
chus, pp,  2S0-1. 

We  shall,  in  the  first  place,  show  that  these  writers  have 
misapprehended  the  meaning  of  their  own  authorities,  and 
that  they  are  mistaken  as  to  the  customs  of  the  Jews  ;  and,  in 
the  next  place,  we  shall  undertake  to  prove,  from  an  exami- 
nation of  the  law  respecting  the  use  of  leaven,  that  the  prohi- 
bition did  not  extend  to  wine.  That  no  fermented  liquors 
made  from  grain  of  any  description  were  used  at  the  Passover 
we  grant,  and  we  shall  establish  this  fact  not  only  by  an  ex- 
amination of  the  authorities  adduced  by  our  authors,  but  by 
others  entitled  to  more  consideration.  "  Gesenius,"  says  Mr. 
Grindrod,  "  an  oriental  scholar  of  great  ability,  states  that  the 
He  brew  word  seor,  which  the  English  translators  have  render- 
ed leaven,  applies  to  wine  as  well  as  bread."  What  then? 
Does  it  follow  as  a  matter  of  course  that  the  law  which  pro- 
hibits the  use  of  bread  which  has  been  leavened  or  ferment- 
ed, forbids  also  the  use  of  fermented  wine  ? 


90 

But  does  Gesenius  say,  that  the  Hebrew  word  iHfr  (seor) 
applies  to  wine  as  well  as  to  bread  ?  Nothing  of  this  is  to 
be  found  either  in  his  Hebrew  and  German  Lexicon  or  in 
his  Hebrew  and  Latin  Lexicon.  In  one  of  these  he  gives, 
as  the  import  of  seor  the  termfermentum,  leaven,  and  in  the 
other  sauerteig,  sour  dough,  and  assigns  to  it  no  other  mean- 
ing. Under  the  head  of  the  supposed  root  of  seor,  viz.  TOfr 
(saar),  Gesenius  observes  that  this  term  is  not  in  use,  and 
that  it  probably  signified  to  ferment,  to  bubble,  and  that 
the  Arabic  verb  sara,  (not  the  Hebrew  noun  seor)  is  used 
in  reference  to  ivine  and  to  anger* 

But  admitting  that  the  Arabic  verb  sara  is  used  in  refer- 
ence to  the  conversion  of  must  into  wine,  does  it  follow  that 

*  The  following  arc  the  words  of  Gesenius:  IXty  rad.  inusit.  cogn.  verbis 
Tp  (q.  v.)  IXty  ferbuit,  efferbuit,  fermcntavit.  ci.tliara  efferbuit,  erupit  (ulcus). 
(In  Unguis  occidentalibus  ejusdem  stirpis  est  Germ,  suar,  ap.  Ottfr.,  Anglo-Saxon 
sur,  nostra  sauer.)  Inde. 

"INK'  m.  fermentum,  Exodus  xii.  15,  19. 

In  his  Hebrew  and  German  Lexicon  he  defines  IKtff  ungebr.  Stw.  wahrsch. 
ausgahren,  aussieden,  verw.  mit  sara  med.  waw  ausspringen,  ausbrausen  vom 
Weine,  vom  Zorne  (spoken  of  wine  of  anger)  thara  aufkochen,  hervorbrechren 
von  Geschwiiren  u.  dgl.  ausspringen.  Davon. 

Tki^  Sauerteig.     (Chald.  "1X0  dass.) 

In  his  Lexicon  compiled  from  the  German  works  of  Gesenius,  Prof.  Gibbs 
defines  "\^V)  leaven,  Chald,  "1X0  idem.,  and  adds,  "in  Arabic,  sara,  med.  Vav, 
to  rise,  ferment,  spoken  of  wine,  of  anger."  In  the  language  of  Gesenius  there 
is  nothing  which  of  necessity  leads  us  to  suppose  that  he  entertained  different 
views  from  Golius,  who,  in  his  Arabic  Lexicon,  says  that  the  verb  sara  is  used 
to  denote  the  effects  of  wino  and  anger :  and  he  gives  not  the  most  distant  inti- 
mation, that  it  is  ever  employed  in  reference  to  the  fermenting  of  must.  Among 
the  different  significations  of  sara  given  by  Golius,  are  "  ascendit,  assilivit,  sal- 
tavit,  impetum  fecit,  Pctivit  caput,  et  in  illud  vim  exeruit  vinum  :  vehementer 
efferbuit  i ra," — the  words  in  italics  being  merely  explanatory  of  the  things  with 
respect  to  which  the  words  and  phrases,  "  Pctivit,  vim  exeruit,"  and  "  vehemen- 
ter efferbuit,"  are  used. 


91 

m  another  language  a  cognate  term  has  precisely  the  same 
extent  of  meaning  ?  Can  Mr.  Grindrod  produce  a  single 
passage  in  which  the  Hebrew  term  seor  is  used  in  reference 
to  wine  made  by  fermenting  the  juice  of  the  grape  ?  If  this 
could  be  done,  which  cannot,  it  would  by  no  means  follow 
that  the  law,  which  excluded  from  the  feast  of  the  Passover 
fermented  bread,  also  prohibited  the  use  of  «  fermented" 
wine.  That  question  must  be  determined  by  an  examina- 
tion of  the  terms  of  the  law  itself:  and  at  the  proper  place 
we  shall  show  that  the  leaven  which  the  Jews  were  required 
to  put  out  of  their  houses  at  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  was 
the  leaven  of  bread,  or  of  the  corn  or  grain  from  which  it 
was  made,  and  not  the  leaven  of  wine  or  of  anger. 

The  next  authority  adduced  is  the  Rev.  C.  F.  Frey,  from 
whose  remarks  Mr.  G.  quotes  the  following  passage.  "  Nor 
dare  they  (the  Jews)  drink  any  liquor  made  from  grain,  nor 
any  liquor  that  has  passed  through  the  process  of  fermenta- 
tion." We  have  not  the  work  of  Mr.  Frey  at  hand,  and 
therefore  cannot  venture  to  speak  with  confidence  as  to 
what  it  was  his  attention  to  affirm  in  using  the  words  just 
cited.  It  may  be  that  he  uses  the  phrase  "  any  liquor"  in 
the  first  member  of  the  sentence,  to  mean  any  spirituous 
liquor,  as  distinguished  from  fermented,  and  that  it  was  his 
design  to  say,  that  the  Jews  dare  not  drink  at  the  Passover 
any  fermented  or  spirituous  liquor  made  from  grain.  If 
this  be  his  meaning  he  is  correct,  and  if  it  be  not,  he  is  in 
error. 

The  third  authority  cited  by  Mr.  Grindrod  must  be  David 
Levi,  author  of  «  A  Succinct  Account  of  the  Duties,  Rites, 
and  Ceremonies  of  the  Jews,"  &c;  for  although  Mr.  G.  omits 
to  mention  both  the  work  and  the  name  of  the  author,  yet 
it  is  evident  that  his  quotation  is  from  this  work,  published 
in  London  about  sixty  years  ago.     This  writer  says  : 


92 

"  Their  drink  during  the  time  of  tire  feast  is  cither  fair 
water  or  raisin  wine  prepared  by  themselves."  He  had 
previously  said,  "  They  likewise  may  not  drink  any  liquor 
that  is  produced  from  any  grain  or  matter  that  is  leavened." 
From  these  two  passages  Mr.  Grindrod,  or  some  one  else, 
whom  he  quotes,  has  made  the  following  sentence :  "  Their 
drink  during  the  time  of  the  feast  is  either  fair  water  or  raisin 
wine,  &c.  prepared  by  themselves,  but  no  kind  of  leaven 
must  be  mixed."  But  does  this  prove  that  the  "raisin 
wine"  was  not  fermented  ?  Do  not  raisins  contain  within 
themselves  every  thing  essential  to  fermentation  that  is  neces- 
sary to  convert  into  wine  the  water  in  which  the  raisins  are 
macerated  ?  And  is  not  "  raisin  wine"  ordinarily  a  wine  of 
great  strength,  and  containing  a  large  quantity  of  alcohol  ? 
It  is  true,  indeed,  it  may  be  so  prepared  as  to  contain  but  a 
very  small  quantity  of  alcohol,  and  be  but  slightly  fermented. 

Levi  does  not  say  raisin  water,  but  "raisin  wine,"  and 
the  only  additional  remarks  which  he  makes  concerning  it 
is,  that  the  Jews  prepare  it  themselves.  The  reason  for  this 
may  be  readily  inferred  from  his  observation  respecting 
Passover  cakes,  and  the  meal  from  which  they  are  made. 
"  The  meal  is  obliged  to  be  bolted  in  the  presence  of  a  Jew, 
otherwise  it  cannot  be  used,  and  the  cakes  are  made  of  flour 
and  water  only,  without  either  yeast  or  salt,  and  the  dough 
is  not  left  a  moment  without  working  of  it,  for  fear  lest  it 
should  rise."  p.  40. 

The  obvious  reason  for  all  this  care  is,  that  by  no  careless- 
ness or  oversight  of  the  persons  concerned  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  meal  or  of  the  wine,  the  least  quantity  of  leaven 
should  be  allowed  to  fall  into  either,  and  thus  vitiate  their 
bread  or  their  drink  for  the  purposes  of  their  festival.  But 
in  all  this  there  is  no  evidence  that  their  "  raisin  wine"  is  not 


93 

fermented,  though  the  evidence  is  direct  that  the  modern 
Jews  do  not  use  malt  liquors  in  celebrating  the  Passover. 

The  next  testimony  adduced  by  Mr.  Grindrod  is  that  of 
R.  H.  Herschel,  author  of  "  A  Brief  Sketch  of  the  Present 
State  and  Future  Expectations  of  the  Jews."     Before  mak- 
ing his  quotation  from  this  writer,  Mr.  G.  observes  «  The 
corroborative  testimony  of  a  recent  writer  of  Jewish  birth, 
and  an  individual  well  acquainted  with  the  customs  of  his 
nation,  contributes  much  to  a  satisfactory  decision  of  the 
question."     «  The  word  homitz,"  remarks  this  author,  "has 
a  wider  signification  than  is  generally  attached  to  that  of 
leaven,  by  which  it  is  rendered  in  the  English  Bible.     Ho- 
mitz signifies  the  fermentation  of  com  in  any  shape,  and 
applies  to  beer,  and  to  all  spirituous  liquors  distilled  front 
corn.     While,  therefore,  there  are  four  days  in  Passover 
week  on  which  business  may  be  done,  being  as  it  were  only 
half  holy-days,  a  distiller  or  brewer  must  suspend  his  busi- 
ness during  the  whole  time.     And  I  must  do  my  brethren 
the  justice  to  say,  that  they  do  not  attempt  to  evade  the 
strictness  of  the  command,  to  put  away  all  leaven  by  any 
ingenious  shift,  but  fulfil  it  to  the  very  letter.     I  knew  an 
instance  of  a  person  in  trade,  who  had  several  casks  of  spi- 
rits sent  to  him,  which  arrived  during  the  time  of  the  Pass- 
over :  had  they  come  a  few  days  sooner,  they  would  have 
been  lodged  in  some  place  apart  from  his  house,  until  the 
feast  was  over :  but  during  its  continuation  he  did  not  think 
it  right  to  meddle  with  them,  and,  after  hesitating  a  little 
while  what  to  do,  he  at  length  poured  the  whole  out  into 
the  street."     Bacchus,  p.  364.     This  passage  is  cited  also  by 
Mr.  Parsons,  Anti-Bacchus,  p.  2S1,  with  the  exception  that 
the  phrase  "  all  spirituous  liquors  made  from  corn,"  in  the 
last  part  of  the  first  sentence  given  above,  he  has  changed 


94 

into  the  phrase  "  all  fermented  liquors,'"  the  words  "from 
com"  being  altogether  omitted. 

Now  what  words  can  show  more  clearly  than  those  of 
Mr.  Herschel,  that  so  far  as  their  drinks  were  concerned,  it 
was  only  from  fermented  and  spirituous  liquors  made  from 
corn,  a  general  term  for  grain,  and  not  from  the  fermented 
juice  of  the  grape,  that  the  Jews  feel  themselves  bound  to 
abstain  at  their  Paschal  feast  ? 

That  the  Jews  of  the  present  day  residing  in  Palestine  are 
wont  to  drink  the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape  during  the 
feast  of  unleavened  bread,  is  put  beyond  all  doubt  by  the 
following  passage  in  the  letter  of  the  Rev.  Eli  Smith.* 
"  Even  in  the  house  of  the  chief  Rabbi  of  the  Spanish  Jews 
at  Hebron,  I  was  once  treated  with  fermented  wine  during 
the  feast  of  unleavened  bread.  I  knew  it  was  fermented 
not  merely  from  its  taste,  but  because  I  had  a  discussion 
with  him  respecting  the  inconsistency  of  having  it  in  his 
house  at  a  time  when  he  had  professedly  banished  every 
thing  that  was  leavened.  The  principal  word,  indeed,  in 
the  Arabic,  for  wine,  khamr,  is  derived  from  the  verb  kha- 
mar,  which  means  to  ferment,  from  the  same  comes  also 
khamireh,  the  word  for  leaven." 

In  this  discussion  we  are  disposed  to  side  with  the  Jew- 
ish Rabbi,  in  opposition  to  the  etymological  argument 
of  our  much  esteemed  correspondent.  The  fact  that  the 
words  khamireh  and  khamr  are  derived  from  the  same  root 
can  be  no  evidence  that  the  law  which  prohibits  the  use  of 
leaven  forbids  also  the  use  of  wine,  until  it  be  shown  that 
khamireh  includes  the  ferment  of  wine  as  well  as  of  bread, 
and  also  that  khamireh  is  the  Hebrew  as  well  as  the  Arabic 

*  Sec  p.  25, 


95 

term  for  leaven.  But  this  will  not  be  pretended.  Corres- 
ponding to  the  Arabic  verb  khamara,  to  ferment,  and  the 
Arabic  noun  khamr,  wine,  there  are  in  the  Hebrew  the 
terms  hhamar,  to  ferment,  and  hhemer,  wine,  but  for  the 
Arabic  term  khamireh  or  khamirat,  leaven,  there  is  no  cog- 
nate word  in  the  Hebrew.  In  this  language,  the  word  for  lea- 
ven is  *iNfc'  (seor)  and  for  the  thing  leavened  ynn  (hhamets); 
therefore  could  it  be  shown  that  in  the  Arabic  the  term  kha- 
mireh included  the  ferment  of  wine  as  well  as  that  of  bread, 
it  would  be  of  no  avail  in  an  attempt  to  prove  that  the  terms 
seor  and  hhamets  do  the  same.  Unless  this  be  done,  there  is 
not  the  shadow  of  proof  that  the  Jews  were  required  toexclude 
from  their  tables  the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape  during  the 
Paschal  feast :  and  were  it  done,  yet  the  evidence  in  favour 
of  the  exclusion  would  be  defective,  until  it  were  shown  from 
an  examination  of  the  terms  of  the  law,  that  the  words  denot- 
ing leaven  were  to  be  taken  in  their  most  extensive  meaning. 
What  the  evidence  is  on  this  point  we  shall  consider  pre- 
sently, and  we  hope  to  show  that  these  terms  express  mere- 
ly the  fermentation  of  corn,  as  mentioned  by  Mr.  Herschel 
in  his  remarks  on  the  import  of  the  j'pp  (hhamets),  given  in 
Bacchus,  p.  364.* 

"The  word  Ckomets"  says  Mr.  Parsons,  "in  Hebrew 

*  ^fMJj  the  Greek  term  for  leaven,  is  derived  from  Psu}  to  ferment,  and 
yet  while  the  verb  is  applied  by  Greek  writers  to  the  fermentation  of  wine,  the 
noun  gUfJW]  is  never  thus  Used.  And  in  Latin,  while  the  verb  ferveo  is  applied 
to  the  transition  of  must  into  wine,  the  noun  fermentum  never  is ;  and  yet  it  is 
employed  to  express  a  drink  made  from  grain. 

"  Et  pocula  Iaeti 
Fermento  atque  acidis  imitantur  vitea  sorbis." — Virgil's  Georgics,  III.  379,  380. 

This  use  of  fermeutum  has  some  resemblance  to  the  use  of  THtl  which  in- 
cludes fermented  liquors  made  from  corn  as  well  as  leavened  bread. 
13 


96 

signifies  leaven,  vinegar,  and  every  kind  of  fermentation." 
From  this  remark  it  is  apparent  he  confounds  the  words  ]'^n 
(hhamets)  and  ynn  (hhomets);  the  first  of  which  denotessome- 
thing  leavened,  and  the  latter  vinegar:  and  if  |'pn  (hhamets), 
and  yon  (hhomets),  were  the  same  word, it  would  be  of  no  use 
to  his  argument,  as  it  could  only  serve  to  show,and  that  with- 
out being  conclusive  as  to  the  fact  that  wine,  when  it  had 
become  acid,  or  had  undergone  the  acetous  fermentation, 
not  the  vinous,  was  prohibited  during  the  feast  of  the  Pass- 
over. The  following  is  the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Schauffler,  for  several  years  past  a  missionary  to  the  Jews, 
and  a  resident  in  Constantinople.  "  But  what  makes  an 
end  to  all  strife  on  the  subject  is  the  invariable  practice  of 

the  synagogue  in  the  celebration  of  the  Passover 

It  has  happened  here,  once  or  twice,  that  the  sale  of  wine 
was  prohibited  by  the  government,  and  then  to  be  sure,  the 
Jews  did  as  well  as  they  could.  They  mingled  petmez  and 
water  together,  because  petmez  is  proper  must-sirup ;  or 
they  made  some  kind  of  currant  wine.  But  this  is  not  left 
to  their  discretion  when  wine  can  be  had.  For  then  every 
Jew,  even  the  poorest,  must  have  four  cups  of  wine,  and  if 
he  cannot  get  sufficient  alms  together  for  the  purpose,  he 
must  sell  whatever  he  has,  and  buy  the  requisite  proportion 
o{ fermented  wine."     Biblical  Repository,  vol.  viii.  p.  301. 

No  farther  evidence  can  be  required  to  prove  that  in  all 
wine  countries  the  Jews  do,  at  this  day,  make  use  of  the 
fermented  juice  of  the  grape  in  their  observance  of  the  Pass- 
over. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  statements  of  the  Mishna,  and 
the  comments  of  Maimonides  and  Bartenora. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  Tract  on  the  Passover  it  is  said 
in  the  Mishna  :  «  On  the  night  of  the  fourteenth  they  make 


97 

search  for  leaven  by  the  light  of  a  lamp.  Places  into  which 
leaven  is  not  taken  need  not  be  searched.  But  wherefore 
have  they  said  two  rows  of  the  cellar  ^mro  ?  (To  point  out) 
the  place  into  which  they  take  leaven." 

On  this  passage  Maimonides  thus  comments  :  "  ^mo  is  the 
name  of  the  wine  cellar.  Wine  and  oil  cellars  have  no 
need  to  be  searched."  Bartenora,  in  answer  to  the  question 
"wherefore  have  they  said  two  rowsof  the  cellar?"  gives,  as 
the  proper  explanation,  "  that  this  is  not  said  except  in  refer- 
ence to  that  cellar  into  which  they  take  leaven,  viz.  the  cellar 
from  which  they  obtain  wine  for  the  table  ;  so  that  it  may 
sometimes  happen  that  the  servant  may  draw  wine  with 
bread  in  his  hand,  and  a  portion  of  the  bread  be  let  fall  in 
the  cellar."*  Bartenora  also  mentions,  that  in  the  wine 
cellars  it  was  usual  to  arrange  the  casks  in  rows,  until  the 
whole  floor  was  covered,  and  then  upon  these  others  were 
placed,  till  the  cellar  was  filled  from  the  ground  to  the  roof. 
This  statement  will  serve  to  explain  why,  in  the  Mishna, 
mention  is  made  of  "two  rows." 

Again,  in  Chap.  III.  of  the  Mishna,  we  have  enumerated 
the  different  kinds  of  drink,  the  use  of  which  is  deemed  a 
transgression  of  the  Passover ;  and  the  general  rule  regula- 
ting this  whole  matter  is  stated  in  terms  the  most  explicit. 
"  This  is  the  general  rule,  whatever  is  made  of  any  species 
of  grain,  transgresses  the  Passover."t  And  under  this 
head  fall  all  drinks,  except  pure  water  and  juices  from 
fruits.  With  respect  to  these,  Maimonides  and  Barte- 
nora both  say,  that  the  Jews  have  a  hypothesis  that  the 

*  Under  the  last  head  we  showed  that  by  wine  Bartenora  understood  a  fer- 
mented liquor  ;  and  that  it  was  in  his  opinion  intoxicating,  we  shall  show  pre- 
sently. 

nooa  i3ij?  ni  "in  pn  poo  «in»  Sd  SSon  m  | 


98 

ivaters  of  fruits  do  not  ferment,  and  therefore  the  Jews 
consider  themselves  at  liberty  to  use  meal  boiled  with  the 
juices  of  fruits,  but  not  with  water.  Among  the  drinks  not 
permitted  to  be  used  at  the  Passover,  the  Mishna  mentions 
the  cutach  of  Babylon,  a  drink  consisting  of  bread  macerat- 
ed in  milk,  the  shekhar  of  the  Medes,  a  beer  or  ale  made 
from  barley,  and  the  vinegar  of  Idumea,  made  from  water 
in  which  barley  has  been  steeped.  No  mention  is  made  of 
any  kind  of  wine  as  excluded  from  the  tables  of  the  Jews 
at  the  Paschal  feast  5  nor  of  any  kind  of  vinegar  except  that 
of  Edom  or  Idumea.  See  Mishna  by  Surenhusius,  Tom. 
II.  pp.  142-3. 

From  Chap.  X.  1,  we  learn  that  "on  the  evening  of  the 
Passover,  near  Minhha  (i.  e.  while  two  and  a  half  hours  re- 
main), a  man  will  not  eat  unless  the  darkness  has  begun. 
Even  a  poor  man  in  Israel  will  not  eat  unless  reclining,  and 
they  will  not  diminish  aught  from  the  four  cups,  not  indeed 
if  in  extreme  poverty."  And  in  the  next  section  it  is  said, 
"  When  they  pour  out  the  first  cup,  the  school  of  Shammai 
says,  he  blesses  the  day  and  then  blesses  the  wine  ;  the 
school  of  Hillel,  that  he  blesses  the  wine  and  then  blesses  the 
day."  And  in  section  seventh  we  are  told  that  "  between 
the  first  and  third  cups,  if  any  one  is  disposed  to  drink  he 
may  ;  but  that  between  the  third  and  fourth  cups  he  may 
not  drink." 

"  The  reason,"  says  Maimonides,  «  that  we  do  not  permit 
him  to  drink  between  the  third  and  fourth  cups  is,  that  he 
may  not  become  intoxicated :  for  wine  drunk  while  eating 
does  not  inebriate,  but  without  food  it  does  inebriate." 
Bartenora  makes  a  similar  remark,  and  assigns  as  the  rea- 
son why  he  may  not  drink  between  the  third  and  fourth 
cups,  that  he  may  not  become  drunk,  and  be  rendered  un- 


99 

able  to  finish  the  hymn,  viz.  a  portion  of  the  ex  v.  cxvi.  cxvii. 
and  cxviii.  Psalms,  which  were  always  sung  at  the  Paschal 
feast.     See  Lightfoot,  I.  967. 

Whether  the  reason  assigned  be  sufficient  or  not,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  opinions  of  Maimonides  and  Bar- 
tenora  respecting  the  kind  of  wine  used  at  the  Passover.* 

From  the  testimony  cited,  it  must  be  apparent  that  our 
authors  can  derive  but  little  support  for  their  opinion  on  the 
point  under  discussion,  from  what  is  said  by  some  recent  wri- 
ters respecting  the  customs  of  the  Jews  at  the  present  day ; 
even  were  it  admitted  that  our  authors  have  in  no  instance 
mistaken  the  views  of  their  own  authorities.  With  respect  to 
the  customs  of  the  ancient  Jews,  we  presume  that  none  will 
venture  to  regard  as  of  equal  authority  the  testimony  of  the 
Jews  of  our  own  times,  and  that  of  the  compiler  of  the 
Mishna,t  and  of  its  learned  annotators.  But  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Herschel,  quoted  both  by  Mr.  Grindrodand  Mr.  Par- 
sons, so  far  from  being  at  variance  with  the  authorities  cited 
by  us,  is,  as  has  been  shown,  in  entire  accordance  with 
them. 

Neither  of  our  authors  has  undertaken  to  show,  from  a 
full  and  careful  examination  of  the  statute  prohibiting  the 
use  of  leaven  at  the  Paschal  feast;  that  the  fermented  juice 
of  the  grape  was  included  in  the  terms  translated  'leaven' 
and  '  leavened  bread.'  Their  main  dependance  for  this  hy- 
pothesis is  the  supposed  practice  of  the  modern  Jews,  and 
also,  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Grindrod,  the  supposed  design  of  the 

*  Those  who  have  not  access  to  the  Mishna,  and  the  comments  of  Maimoni- 
des and  Bartenora,  edited  by  Surenhusius,  may  consult  with  advantage  Light- 
foot's  account  of  the  Passover. 

f  The  Mishna  is  generally  believed  to  have  been  compiled  by  Rabbi  Judah 
Hakkodosh,  or  Judah  the  Holy  Doctor,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century. 


100 

Saw  relating  to  the  use  of  leaven.  Mr.  G.  does  indeed  quote 
Exodus  xiii.  7,  "  Unleavened  bread  shall  be  eaten  seven 
days :  and  there  shall  no  leavened  bread  yipn  be  seen  with 
thee,  neither  shall  there  be  leaven  "ixif  seen  with  thee  in  all 
thy  quarters."  And  he  imagines  that  he  has  the  authority 
of  Gesenius  for  asserting  that  ixtp  (seor)  applies  to  wine  as 
well  as  leavened  bread  ;  and  the  authority  of  Mr.  Herschel, 
a  converted  Jew,  for  maintaining  the  same  respecting  vrm 
(hhamets):  and  so  confident  is  he  of  the  correctness  of  his 
inferences,  and  of  the  value  of  his  authorities,  that  he  ven- 
tures to  change  the  expression  used  in  our  English  Bibles, 
and  to  call  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  "  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened things,"  (see  Bacchus,  p.  363,)  as  if  the  words  '  un- 
leavened bread'  were  of  too  limited  import  to  express  the 
meaning  of  the  original. 

Let  us  now  examine  some  passages  of  scripture  in  rela- 
tion to  this  subject ;  and  first  the  original  command  in  re- 
gard to  it:  "Seven  days  shall  ye  eat  unleavened  bread;  even 
the  first  day  ye  shall  put  away  leaven  out  of  your  houses ; 
for  whosoever  eateth  leavened  bread  from  the  first  day  until 
the  seventh  day,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  Israel.  And 
in  the  first  day  there  shall  be  a  holy  convocation,  and  in  the 
seventh  there  shall  be  a  holy  convocation  to  you  :  no  man- 
ner of  work  shall  be  done  in  them,  save  that  which  every 
man  must  eat,  that  only  may  be  done  of  you.  And  ye  shall 
observe  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread ;  for  in  this  self-same 
day  have  I  brought  you  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  therefore 
shall  ye  observe  this  day  in  your  generations  by  an  ordi- 
nance forever.  In  the  first  month,  on  the  fourteenth  day  of 
the  month,  at  even,  ye  shall  eat  unleavened  bread  until  the 
one  and  twentieth  day  of  the  month  at  even.  Seven  days 
there  shall  be  no  leaven  found  in  your  houses  ;  for  whoso- 


101 

ever  cateth  that  which  is  leavened,  even  that  sonl  shall  be 
cut  off  from  the  congregation  of  Israel,  whether  he  be  a 
stranger  or  born  in  the  land.  Ye  shall  eat  nothing  leavened : 
in  all  your  habitations  ye  shall  eat  unleavened  bread."  Ex- 
odus xii.  15 — 20. 

Had  we  not  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  should  deem  it 
impossible  for  any  person  to  imagine  that  the  prohibition  in 
the  above  passage  had  respect  to  any  thing  else  than  the 
leaven  of  bread ;  no  other  food  than  bread  is  mentioned  in 
the  passage,  and  the  reason  why  leavened  bread  should  be 
forbidden,  and  unleavened  bread  should  be  directed  to  be 
used,  may  be  readily  ascertained  by  a  comparison  of  the 
above  passage  with  the  33d,  34th,  and  39th  verses  of  the 
same  chapter.  "  And  the  Egyptians  were  urgent  upon  the 
people,  that  they  might  send  them  out  of  the  land  in  haste ; 
for  they  said,  We  be  all  dead  men.  And  the  people  took 
their  dough  before  it  was  leavened,  their  kneading-troughs 
being  bound  up  in  their  clothes  upon  their  shoulders.  And 
they  baked  unleavened  cakes  of  the  dough  which  they 
brought  forth  out  of  Egypt,  for  it  was  not  leavened,  because 
they  were  thrust  out  of  Egypt,  and  could  not  tarry,  neither 
had  they  prepared  for  themselves  any  victuals." 

When  God  instituted  the  Passover,  he  declared  of  the  day 
on  which  it  was  observed,  "  And  this  day  shall  be  unto  you 
for  a  memorial,  and  ye  shall  keep  it  a  feast  unto  the  Lord 
throughout  your  generations,  ye  shall  keep  it  a  feast  by  an 
ordinance  forever,'7  and  we  can  readily  perceive  how  the 
eating  of  unleavened  bread  would  serve  to  remind  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  of  the  haste  with  which  their  fathers  left  the 
land  of  Egypt,  when  urged  by  the  Egyptians  to  depart ;  "  the 
people  took  their  dough  before  it  was  leavened,  their  knead- 
ing troughs  (or  dough)  being  bound  up  in  their  clothes  on 


102 

their  shoulders,  because  they  were  thrust  out,  and  could 
not  tarry."* 

In  the  next  chapter,  Exodus  xiii.,  the  command  is  repeat- 
ed, that  the  feast  of  the  Passover  should  be  kept  throughout 
their  generations,  as  a  memorial  of  their  deliverance  from 
Egypt,  and  of  the  circumstances  attending  it.  "  And  Moses 
said,  Remember  this  day,  in  which  ye  came  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage,  for  by  strength  of 
hand  the  Lord  brought  you  out  from  this  place  :  there  shall 
no  leavened  bread  be  eaten,"  v.  4.  "  Seven  days  shalt  thou 
eat  unleavened  bread,  and  in  the  seventh  day  shall  be  a 
feast  to  the  Lord.  Unleavened  bread  shall  be  eaten  seven 
days  ;  and  there  shall  no  leavened  bread  be  seen  with  thee, 
neither  shall  there  be  leaven  seen  with  thee  in  all  thy  quar- 
ters. And  thou  shalt  show  thy  son  in  that  day,  saying,  This 
is  done  because  of  that  which  the  Lord  did  unto  me  when  I 
came  forth  out  of  Egypt.  And  it  shall  be  for  a  sign  unto 
thee  upon  thine  hand,  and  for  a  memorial  between  thine 
eyes,"  &c. 

In  this  passage,  as  in  the  one  cited  from  the  preceding 
chapter,  no  other  eatable  but  bread  is  mentioned  in  connex- 
ion with  the  terms  denoting  leaven  ;  and  with  respect  to 
bread,  it  is  required  that  it  be  unleavened  during  the  Pass- 
over and  the  following  six  clays. 

What  reason  then  is  there  for  supposing  that  the  Hebrew 
terms  seor  and  hhamcts  are,  in  these  passages,  to  be  ap- 
plied to  any  thing  else  than  the  leaven  of  bread,  even  ad- 

*  It  was  for  a  like  purpose  that  the  Israelites  were  required  to  dwell  in  booths 
seven  days  in  a  year.  "  Ye  shall  dwell  in  booths  seven  days ;  all  that  are  Isra- 
elites born  shall  dwell  in  booths.  That  your  generations  may  know  that  I  made 
the  children  of  Israel  to  dwell  in  booths,  when  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt.     I  am  the  Lord  your  God."     Lev.  xxiii.  42,  43. 


103 

mitting  what  we  have  already  shown  is  not  the  fact,  that  they 
may  include  the  ferment  of  wine  as  well  as  of  bread  ?  There 
is  not  in  the  words  of  the  law  the  shadow  of  a  reason  for  any 
such  application  of  these  terms  as  our  authors  would  give 
them.  And  this  view  of  the  subject,  we  think,  is  abundant- 
ly confirmed  by  what  is  said  in  Deut.  xvi.  2,  3.  "  Thou 
shalt  therefore  sacrifice  the  Passover  unto  the  Lord  thy  God, 

of  the  flock  and  the  herd Thou  shalt  eat  no  leavened 

bread  with  it ;  seven  days  shalt  thou  eat  unleavened  bread 
therewith,  even  the  bread  of  affliction  :  for  thou  earnest  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt  in  haste  :  that  thou  may  est  remem- 
ber the  day  when  thou  earnest  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  all 
the  days  of  thy  life."     Besides  establishing  our  position, 
that  the  Israelites  were  required  to  eat  unleavened  bread  as 
a  memorial  of  the  circumstances  attending  their  deliverance, 
this  passage  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  determine  the  meaning 
of  the  Hebrew  term  m'tfo  (matstsoth),  the  plural  form  of  the 
word    two  f    rendered     by    our    translators    "  unleavened 
bread,"  and  styled  by  the  sacred  penmen  "  the  bread  of  af- 
fliction," "UP  DnS  And  although  this  word,  matstsoth,  is  used 
more  than  forty  times  in  the  Hebrew  scriptures,  in  no  in- 
stance is  it  used  to  express  any  thing  else  than  an  unfer- 
mented  preparation  of  meal  or  flour.     Sometimes  it  is  used 
in  connexion  With  onb    the  general  term  for  bread,  some- 
times with  fribn  cakes ;  also  with  m'Jtf  small  cakes ;  and 
again  we  meet  with  the  phrase  ntea  ,p;p^  unleavened  wafers, 
but  for  the  most  part  it  is  used  alone,  and  yet  from  the  con- 
text or  parallel  passages  it  is  evident  that  it  has  reference  to 
unleavened  bread,  cakes  or  wafers.     Striking  examples  o 
this  are  furnished  by  the  following  passages.     Judges  v.  19, 
20,  "  And  Gideon  went  in,  made  ready  a  kid,  and  unlea- 
vened cakes  (i^^to)^  0f  an  ephah  of  flour.    .  .  And  the  angel 
14 


104 

said,  take  the  flesh  and  the  unleavened  cakes  (fri3f» )."  ljSam- 
uel  xxvii.  25,  "And  the  woman  .  .  .  took  flour,  and  knead- 
ed it,  and  did  bake  unleavened  bread  (nfxn )  thereof."  With 
the  strictest  propriety  therefore  is  matstsoth  rendered  by  our 
English  translators  " unleavened  bread" 

In  farther  confirmation  we  will  cite  Matthew  xvi.  5 — 12, 
"  And  when  his  disciples  were  come  to  the  other  side  they 
had  forgotten  to  take  bread.  Then  Jesus  said  unto  them, 
Take  heed  and  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and 
of  the  Sadducees.  And  they  reasoned  among  themselves 
and  said,  It  is  because  we  have  taken  no  bread.  Which 
when  Jesus  perceived,  he  said  unto  them,  0  ye  of  little  faith, 
why  reason  ye  among  yourselves,  because  ye  have  brought 
no  bread  ?  Do  ye  not  yet  understand,  nor  remember  the 
five  loaves  of  five  thousand,  and  how  many  baskets  ye  took 
up  ?  Neither  the  seven  loaves  of  the  four  thousand,  and 
how  many  baskets  ye  took  up  ?  How  is  it  that  ye  do  not 
understand,  that  I  spake  not  to  you  concerning  bread,  that 
ye  should  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  the 
Sadducees  ?  Then  understood  they  how  that  he  bade  them 
not  beware  of  the  leaven  of  bread,  but  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees."  The  Greek  term  for  leaven  is 
gupi,  the  word  by  which  the  Seventy  render  the  Hebrew 
term  ixfr.  That  in  the  above  passage  it  has  no  reference  to 
fermented  wine,  and  that  it  is  confined  to  the  leaven  of 
bread,  will,  we  presume,  be  conceded  by  our  authors  and  all 
who  agree  with  them  in  opinion :  and  if  this  be  so,  does 
it  not  follow  that  when  the  term  for  leaven,  viz.  ii<tp  in  He- 
brew, or  £u{at]  in  Greek,  is  not  used  figuratively,  but  in  refer- 
ence to  an  article  of  diet,  it  is  sometimes  at  least  undeniably 
restricted  in  its  meaning  to  the  leaven  of  bread?  and  if 
this  be  the  case,  it  belongs  to  our  authors  to  prove  that  in  the 


105 

scriptures  it  is  ever  used  to  express  any  thing  else  than  the 
leaven  of  bread  ;  and  not  only  this,  but  also  that  in  the  pas 
sages  relating  to  the  Passover  it  is  used  in  the  more  extended 
sense.     But  this  they  neither  have  nor  can  do. 

We  have  a  still  farther  confirmation  of  our  position  in  the 
remarks  of  Paul,  1  Cor.  v.  6—8, «  But  your  glorying  is  not 
good.  Know  ye  not  that  a  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole 
lump  ?  Purge  out  therefore  the  old  leaven,  that  ye  may  be 
a  new  lump,  as  ye  are  unleavened.  For  even  Christ  our  Pass- 
over is  sacrificed  for  us  :  therefore  let  us  keep  the  feast,  not 
with  old  leaven,  neither  with  the  leaven  of  malice  and  wick- 
edness, but  with  the  unleavened  bread  (d^ois)  of  sincerity  and 
truth."  In  using  the  expression  "  old  leaven,"  Ainsworth 
supposes,  and  not  without  some  reason,  that  Paul  had  refer- 
ence to  1M?  (seor),  and  in  the  phrase  "  leaven  of  malice 
and  wickedness,"  he  alludes  to  yon,  the  terms  used  in  Exo- 
dus xii.  1 9  and  xiii.  7,  to  denote  leaven  and  leavened  bread, 
"lkfr,  according  to  Ainsworth,  expressing  a  remnant  of  leavened 
dough,  and  yon  its  sourness  of  taste,  or  rather  the  first  deno- 
ting the  leaven  by  which  the  dough  or  bread  is  fermented, 
and  ron  denoting  the  leavened  bread  or  dough  itself. 

That  our  translators  have  correctly  supplied  the  word  bread 
after  unleavened,  in  v.  8,  to  express  the  exact  import  of  a^'/xoig, 
is  put  beyond  all  question  by  the  use  of  the  word  '  lump' 
in  v.  6,  the  original  term,  cpuga^a,  denoting  a  mass  or  lump 
of  macerated  and  kneaded  flour,  and  «£ufxa  is  the  term  em- 
ployed by  the  translators  of  the  Septuagint  to  express  the 
meaning  of  nfxn  which,  in  the  other  cases  cited,  we  have 
shown  denotes  unleavened  bread,  cakes  or  wafers.  In  this 
passage,  be  it  remembered,  Paul  is  referring  to  the  customs 
connected  with  the  observation  of  the  Passover. 

The  above  cited  passages  do,  in  our  opinion,  furnish  evi- 


106 

dence  the  most  conclusive  in  favour  of  our  position,  and 
they  show  that  m'xp  in  Hebrew,  and  a^ufxa  in  Greek,  when 
not  used  figuratively,  do  invariably  denote  unleavened 
bread,  cakes  or  wafers,  and  nothing  else ;  and  also  that  IHtf 
(seor)  and  ]'?n  (hhamets)  do  invariably  denote  a  fermented 
preparation  of  meal  or  corn,  and  nothing  else  :  and  hence  we 
infer  that  the  law  prohibiting  the  use  of  leaven  at  the  Pass- 
over, had  no  reference  whatever  to  the  use  of  wine  or  the 
fermented  juice  of  the  grape.  Hence,  too,  we  can  perceive 
why  the  Jews,  in  their  care  to  avoid  all  leaven  forbidden  by 
their  law,  abstained,  during  the  Passover,  from  all  drinks 
made  from  grain,  and  which  in  making  them  required  the 
use  of  yeast  or  leaven,  while  at  the  same  time  they  hesitated 
not  to  use  the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape,  if  it  had  been 
kept  in  such  a  position  that  no  particle  of  leavened  bread 
could  have  been  dropped  into  the  vessel  containing  the  wine 
through  the  carelessness  of  a  servant,  as  is  witnessed  by  the 
most  learned  of  the  Rabbinical  writers,  whose  testimony 
has  already  been  given  in  the  previous  pages.  Were  it  a 
fact  that  the  Jews  did  not  use  the  fermented  juice  of  the 
grape  at  the  Passover,  would  it  not  be  a  most  marvellous 
circumstance  that  amidst  all  the  various  directions  given  by 
their  Mishna  or  Oral  Law  for  the  right  observation  of  the 
Passover,  not  the  most  distant  allusion  should  be  made  to 
the  supposed  fact,  and  yet  sundry  fermented  drinks  are  men- 
tioned, the  use  of  which  is  declared  a  transgression  of  the 
Passover,  they  being  drinks  made  from  corn ;  and  the  gene- 
ral rule  regulating  the  exclusion  of  drinks  is  explicitly  said 
to  be  this,  viz.  "that  every  thing  made  from  corn  is  a  viola- 
tion of  the  Passover."  And  while  no  kind  of  wine  is  inter- 
dicted as  being  a  transgression  of  the  Passover,  the  drinking 
of  four  cups  of  wine  is  required  of  every  person,  even 


107 

the  poorest.  How  passing  strange  then,  if  the  fermented 
juice  of  the  grape  was  a  transgression  of  the  Passover,  it 
should  not  have  been  mentioned  in  the  Jewish  traditions 
with  the  other  prohibited  and  fermented  drinks,  the  cutach 
of  Babylon,  the  shechar  or  beer  of  the  Medes,  and  the  vine- 
gar of  Edom  ? 

We  have  now  examined  the  testimony  of  our  authors, 
and  we  have  shown,  1.  That  they  have  misapprehended  the 
meaning  of  their  own  authorities,  at  least  in  every  case 
where  that  is  of  any  account.  2.  We  have  shown,  from  the 
best  Jewish  authorities,  in  all  matters  relating  to  the  cus- 
toms of  the  Jews,  that  wine  capable  of  producing  intox- 
ication was  not  prohibited  at  the  Jewish  Passover,  but  on 
the  contrary  was  used.  3.  We  have  shown,  from  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Rev.  Eli  Smith  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Schauffler,  that 
fermented  wine  is  used  by  Jews  at  the  present  day.  4.  We 
have  shown  that  the  argument  founded  on  the  etymology  of 
the  Arabic  terms  denoting  leaven  and  wine  is  of  no  account. 
And,  finally,  we  have  shown,  from  a  careful  examination  of 
the  scriptures,  that  the  prohibition  of  leaven  at  the  feast  of 
the  Passover  had  respect  merely  to  the  leaven  of  bread. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  enter  upon  an  examination  of 
the  next  position. 

VI.  The  sixth  position  to  be  examined  is  this,  viz.  that  as 
our  Saviour  instituted  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
at  the  Passover,  he  could  not  have  used  the  fermented  juice 
of  the  grape. 

"  It  is  therefore  certain,"  says  Mr.  Parsons,  "  that  our 
blessed  Lord  did  not  use  fermented  alcoholic  liquor  at  the 
first  sacrament."  Anti-Bacchus,  pp.  281,  282.  And  on  this 
subject  Mr.  Grindrod  thus  writes :  "  The  institution  of  the 


108 

Lord's  Supper  is  another  example  commonly  adduced  in 
testimony  that  the  Saviour  both  sanctioned  and  participated 
in  the  use  of  intoxicating  wine.  There  is  strong  reason  to 
believe  that  this  occurrence  took  place  before  the  conclusion 
of  the  Passover,  and,  in  this  case,  the  arguments  in  support 
of  the  absence  of  fermented  wine  during  the  latter  obser- 
vance will  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  former."  Bacchus, 
p.  419. 

Although  it  is  denied  by  Lightfoot  and  others  that  the 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  at  the  Pass- 
over, we  are  not  disposed  to  question,  in  the  least,  the  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Grindrod  on  this  point ;  on  the  contrary,  we 
fully  accord  with  it.  That  our  Lord  made  use  of  wine  at 
the  institution  of  the  Eucharist  is  distinctly  admitted  both 
by  Mr.  Grindrod  and  Mr.  Parsons,  and  their  aim  is  to  show 
that  it  must  have  been  unfermented,  from  the  fact  that  the 
sacrament  was  instituted  at  the  Passover,  when,  according 
to  their  view  of  the  matter,  the  Jews  were  forbidden  to  have 
in  their  houses  either  leavened  bread  or  fermented  liquor  of 
any  description.  That  they  were  altogether  in  error  on  this 
point  we  undertook  to  show  under  our  last  head ;  and  if 
successful  in  attaining  our  object,  it  follows  of  course  that 
their  conclusion  falls  with  their  premises  ;  and  that  our  Sa- 
viour, as  was  usual  at  the  Passover,  used  the  fermented 
juice  of  the  grape,  and  with  it  and  with  bread  instituted  the 
memorial  of  his  death. 

Here  we  might  rest  the  matter ;  but  as  there  is  abundant 
evidence  in  the  writings  of  the  early  Christian  fathers,  and 
in  the  history  of  the  Church,  to  corroborate  our  position, 
that  the  Saviour,  at  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist,  used 
wine  or  the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape,  we  presume  that 
it  will  gratify  our  readers  to  present  them  with  some  of  this 


109 

evidence.  In  giving  this  testimony,  we  shall  begin  with 
that  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  one  of  the  most  learned  and 
able  men  of  his  age,  and  of  whom  Mr.  Grindrod  thus  speaks: 
"  The  writings  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  flourished 
during  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  and  the  com- 
mencement of  the  third,  contain  much  information  respecting 
the  drinking  habits  of  the  people,  and  the  injurious  effects 

thereby  produced  on  the  prosperity  of  the  church 

This  writer  exhibits  what  ought  to  be  the  conduct  of  genu- 
ine Christians,  and  enters  into  directions  concerning  the 
appetites.  He  strongly  reprobates  gluttony  and  luxury, 
and,  in  particular,  the  use  of  a  variety  of  aliments."  Bac- 
chus, p.  424.  We  have  here  then  a  witness,  as  to  the  value 
of  whose  testimony  Mr.  Grindrod  and  ourselves  are  agreed, 
and  of  whom  Mr.  G.  farther  says,  "  In  the  second  chapter 
this  celebrated  father  writes  concerning  the  moderate  use  of 
wine,  which  he  says  should  in  general  be  mixed  with  water. 
There  is,  however,  much  said  by  this  writer  which  probably 
has  escaped  the  notice  of  Mr.  Grindrod,  and  which  is  of  no 
little  importance  in  regard  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
church.  Not  only  does  he  say  that  it  is  best  to  mix  wine  with 
a  very  large  quantity  of  water,  and  that  both  wine  and  water 
are  creatures  of  God,  «jx<pw  fxsv  yag  <roy  Ssou  tfoi^xoera,  and  that  a 
mixture  of  both  contributes  to  health,  the  one  being  neces- 
sary, the  other  useful ;  but  in  immediate  connexion  he  de- 
scribes the  effects  of  the  immoderate  use  of  wine,  viz.  that 
by  it  "  the  tongue  is  tied,  the  lips  relaxed,  the  eyes  are  turned 
aside,  as  if  the  sight  were  swimming  from  the  abundance  of 
the  moisture  ;  and  compelled  to  be  deceived,  they  imagine 
all  things  to  have  a  circular  motion."* 

*   Oi'v^J  <5s  «(^sV^w  »}  (Aiv  yXw<r<ra  ffagatfod/^STar  iraPUTai  5s  to.  ^s/Xrj 


110 

Again  he  says,  "  With  propriety  therefore  does  the  divine 
Teacher,  anxious  for  our  salvation,  in  the  strongest  terms 
announce  the  prohibition, 'Drink  not  wine  to  drunkenness."'* 

From  these  passages  we  may  learn  what  Clemens  under- 
stood by  the  term  ofvos  wine,  viz.  a  liquor  which  when  used 
with  prudence  contributed  to  health,  but  when  used  immo- 
derately produced  drunkenness,  with  all  its  attendant  evils. 

Again,  p.  68,  after  remarking  that  the  Scythians,  Celts, 
Iberians  and  Thracians  are  warlike  nations,  and  given  to 
drunkenness,  and  that  Christians,  being  a  peaceful  race,  and 
feasting  for  enjoyment  and  not  for  violence,  drink  sober 
healths,  that  their  friendships  may  be  exhibited  in  truth  as 
Well  as  in  name,  he  adds,  "  How  do  you  suppose  the  Lord 
drank  when  on  our  account  he  was  made  man  ?  So  shame- 
lessly as  we  ?  Did  he  not  do  it  becomingly  ?  Decorously  ? 
With  consideration  ?  Ye  know  well  he  also  partook  of 
wine  ;  for  even  he  was  also  a  man  ;  and  he  blessed  the 

Wine,  saying,  Take,  drink,  this  is  my  blood and 

that  it  was  wine  which  was  blessed,  he  shows  again,  saying 
to  his  disciples,  I  will  not  drink  of  the  fruit  of  this  vine,  un- 
til I  drink  it  with  you  in  the  kingdom  of  my  Father."! 

bcpGak^ot  <5s  •Tfa^ar^iirovTai,  oiov  xuXv^utfris  Tr,s  o'%^£w;  iiitl  tou  <z'k7)(Sovs  ?r)s 
vygorriros'  xai  ■\*su5s<j6ai  /3s§iao>s'voi,  xuxXu  jjisv  yjj'ouvrai  crs^ip^so'dai 
fa  Travfa.   p;   66. 

*  EixoTWg  Guv  tfTSggdf  ara  6  itaibuyuiylc,  airayogstsi,  t^s  '/jfj.£f£|as  xyjSo- 
f/,svos  Cw<rT]£iaS,  Mr)  ttivsts  o/vov  iiri  pj()r).   p.  67. 

t  Ilwg  oietfQs  ireVwxe'vai  tov  xu^iov,  c«r/]vi'xa  51  r]\t.ag  avQgwffos  syivSTO  ; 
oUfwg  avaitf^iWwS  wg  vjjxsis;  ou^i  dtfrsi'us  ;  oup^i  xotffAi'wg;  oux  s-Ki'ks'hoyuf- 
jxg'vwg;  £u  yug  'itirs,  (jt-SrsXaSsv  o'/vou  xai  avToS'  xai  yag  uvOguirog  xai  avroS' 
xai  suXorTjCsfv  yz  tgv  otvov,  SiVwv,  AocSsts"  lists'  touto  fxou  sotiv  to  aip*a. 
otj  5s  o'ivoS  y)\i  to  £uXoy>]t)iv,  d'fft'^Eigs  tfctXiv,  tfgog  tous  fAa$T)Ta<; 


Ill 

What  testimony  can  be  more  to  the  point  ?  This  passage 
contains  the  very  language  of  our  Saviour  when  he  institu- 
ted the  Eucharist,  and  gave  the  cup  to  his  disciples.  If  on 
that  occasion  he  used  an  unfermented  and  an  unintoxicating 
wine,  surely  Clemens  Alexandrinus  could  never  have  heard 
of  the  fact.  In  confirmation  of  his  position,  Clemens  adds, 
«  And  that  it  was  wine  which  was  drunk  by  the  Lord,  (is 
evident,)  for  he  again  speaks  of  himself,  reproaching  the 
Jews  for  their  hardness  of  heart,  the  Son  of  man,  says  he, 
came,  and  they  say,  behold  a  gluttonous  man  and  a  wine- 
bibber,  a  friend  of  sinners.  Let  this  be  firmly  fixed  in  our 
minds  against  those  called  Encratites,"*  a  heretical  sect, 
who  opposed  marriage,  the  use  of  animal  food,  and  wine, 
accounting  them  an  abomination. 

Commenting  upon  the  command  given  to  Aaron  and  his 
sons,  with  respect  to  wine  and  strong  drink,  Origen  observes, 
that  before  they  approached  the  altar,  they  indulged  in  the 
use  of  wine ;  but  that  when  they  began  to  draw  nigh  to  the 
altar,  and  to  enter  into  the  tabernacle  of  testimony,  they  ab- 
stained from  wine  ;  and  he  proposes,  as  a  subject  of  inquiry, 
whether  any  thing  similar  can  be  found  in  the  conduct  of 
our  Saviour  and  his  apostles.  And  in  order  to  show  that 
there  existed  a  striking  resemblance,  he  says,  "  The  Saviour 
had  come  into  the  world  that  he  might  offer  his  own  flesh  a 

Xsywv*  Ou  fw}  itiu  h  tou  yswY^aros  ty^  a/Mrs'Xou  Taurus,  fJ-s'x£'£  av  itiu 

auTo  (X£^'  u(aojv  h  tv  /3a<xiXsia  tou  tfccTPo'g  p-ou.  p.  G8. 

*  "AXX'  oti  y£  oTvoS  vjv  to  wiv6|XSvov  tf£og  tou  xugi'ou,  tfaAiv  auVog  rtsgl 

iauTou  Xs'ysij  t^v  Iou<5aiwv  svovsiSi^wv  <rxX7]£oxa£<5iav,  yXQev  yug,  (pyjtfjv,  o 

uiog  tou  av$gw7rou-  xa»  Xs'youtfiv  Ioou  avd£c«wrog  cpuyos  xal  oJvoiroTTjg,  tsXcjvwv 

<piXog.      Touto   (J-iv   TtfjJv  xai  Tgijg  Toug   iyxgarrirttS    xaXouf/.s'voug   itaga.- 

tlZttrfXpu.   p.  68. 
15 


112 

sacrifice  to  God  for  our  sins.  Before  he  made  this  offering 
he  drank  wine.  But  when  the  time  for  him  to  be  crucified 
was  come,  and  he  was  about  to  approach  the  altar  that  he 
might  immolate  his  own  flesh,  <  taking  the  cup,  he  blessed 
it,  and  gave  it  to  his  disciples,  saying,  Take  and  drink  of 
this.'  Drink  ye,  he  says,  who  are  not  now  about  to  ap- 
proach the  altar.  But  he,  about  to  approach  the  altar,  says 
of  himself,  '  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  that  I  will  not  drink  of 
the  fruit  of  this  vine,  until  I  drink  it  new  with  you  in  the 
kingdom  of  my  Father.'  " 

That  Origen  here  speaks  of  the  wine  used  at  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  he 
quotes  the  very  words  of  the  Saviour  on  that  occasion.  It 
is  also  evident  that  Origen  believed  that  the  wine  distributed 
by  our  Lord  to  his  disciples,  was  the  wine  from  which  the 
priests  were  required  to  abstain  when  they  entered  into  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation.  And  that  the  wine  from 
which  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  required  to  abstain  was  an 
intoxicating  wine,  no  one  pretends  to  question :  consequent- 
ly, according  to  Origen,  in  instituting  the  Eucharist,  our  Lord 
made  use  of  an  intoxicating  wine.* 

*  "  Quid  ergo  praecepit  lex  Aaron  et  filiis  ejus  ?  ut  vinum,  et  siceram  non  bi- 
bant,  cum  accedunt  ad  altare.  Videamus  quomodo  id  vero  pontifico  Jesu  Chris- 
to  Domino  nostro,  et  sacerdotibus  ejus  ac  filiis,  nostris  vero  Apostolis  possimus 
aptare.  Et  perspiciendum  primo  est,  quomodo  prius  quidem  quam  accedat  ad 
altare  verus  hie  pontifex,  cum  sacerdotibus  suis  bibit  vinum,  cum  vero  incipit 
accedere  ad  altare,  et  ingredi  in  tabernaculum  testimonii,  abstinet  vino.     Putas 

possumus  inverire  tale  aliquid  ab  eo  gestural Venerat  in  hunc 

mundum  Sa'vator,  ut  propeccatis  camera  suam  oiTerrct  hostiam  Deo.     Hanc 

priusquam  oilerret  inter  dispensationum  moras,  vinum  bibebat Ubi 

vero  tempus  advenit  crucis  suae,  et  accessurus  erat  ad  altare  ubi  immolaret  hos- 
tiam carnis  suae,  aceipiens,  inquit,  calicem  benedixit,  et  dedit  discipulis  suis 
dicens.     Accipite  et  bibitc  ex   hoc.     Vos,  inquit,  bibite,  qui  modo  accessuri 


113 

St.  Cyprian  is  the  next  writer  whose  authority  we  shall 
adduce  on  this  subject.*  From  his  LXII1.  Epistle  it  appears 
that  even  prior  to  his  time  some  of  the  early  Christians,  from 
ignorance  or  from  fear  of  being  discovered  by  their  enemies, 
were  wont  to  use  water  instead  of  wine  in  their  morning 
celebrations  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  practice  Cyprian 
condemns  in  the  most  explicit  terms ;  and  in  the  course  of 
his  remarks,  he  undertakes  to  show  that  it  was  directly  at 
variance  with  the  example  and  command  of  Christ :  and  he 
maintains  that  our  Saviour  used  wine  mixed  with  water ; 
and  farther  he  speaks  of  the  wine  as  inebriating.  Our  limits 
forbid  our  quoting  all  that  is  said  on  this  subject  by  St.  Cy- 
prian ;  and  we  shall  therefore  content  ourselves  with  citing 
what  may  suffice  for  our  present  purpose,  and  to  show  that 
we  give  a  fair  representation  of  the  views  of  this  father. 
His  words  are,  "  Since  therefore  neither  the  apostle  himself, 
nor  an  angel  from  heaven,  can  announce  or  teach  otherwise 
than  that  which  Christ  once  taught  and  his  apostles  preached, 
I  marvel  that,  contrary  to  the  evangelical  and  apostolical 
discipline,  it  is  come  into  use,  that  in  some  places  water, 
which  alone  cannot  represent  the  blood  of  Christ,  is  present- 
ed in  the  cup  of  the  Lord.  Of  this  sacrament  the  Spirit 
speaks  in  the  Psalms,  making  mention  of  the  Lord's  cup, 
and  saying,  Thine  inebriating  cup,  how  excellent.     A  cup 

non  estis  ad  altare.  Ipse  autem  tanquam  accessurus  ad  altare,  dicit  de  se : 
Amen  dico  vobis,  quia  non  bibam  de  generatione  vitis  hujus,  usquequo  bibam 
illud  vobiscum  novum  in  regno  patris  mei."  With  respect  to  the  genuineness 
of  the  homilies  from  which  the  above  extract  is  given,  let  the  reader  consult  the 
Bibliotheca  Graeca  of  Fabricius,  Tom.  V.  '  As  mentioned  before,  our  quota- 
tion from  this  homily  is  made  from  the  Latin  translation  of  Rufinus. 

*  Cyprian  was  Bishop  of  Carthage,  and  suffered  martyrdom  A,  D.  258.    He 
ranks  among  the  most  distinguished  of  the  early  Christian  fathers. 


114 

that  inebriates  is  surely  mixed  with  wine,  for  water  cannot 
inebriate  any  one.  But  the  cup  of  the  Lord  so  inebriates, 
as  Noah,  in  Genesis,  drinking  wine,  was  inebriated."*  To 
prevent  all  abuse  of  this  remark,  Cyprian  proceeds  to  dis- 
tinguish between  ebriety  produced  by  the  cup  of  the  Lord 
and  the  ebriety  occasioned  by  the  use  of  common  wine  : 
and  he  shows  that  he  regards  the  exhilarating  effects  of  com- 
mon wine  as  symbolical  of  the  joys  attendant  on  a  right 
participation  of  the  cup  of  the  Lord.t  It  is  Cyprian's  object 
to  show  that  in  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  it 
was  proper  to  use  wine  mixed  with  water,  and  not  water 
only  ;  and  in  doing  this,  he  is  led  to  speak  of  the  inebriating 
qualities  of  the  wine  used  by  our  Lord  in  the  institution  of 
that  ordinance. 

Chrysostom,  in  his  exposition  of  Matthew  xxvi.  29,  ob- 
serves, that  after  his  resurrection,  our  Saviour  drank  wine, 
that  he  might  pluck  up  by  the  roots  the  wicked  heresy  of 
those  who  used  water  instead  of  wine  in  the  celebration  of 

*  Cum  ergo  neque  ipse  apostolus,  neque  angelus  de  coelo  annunciare  possit 
aliter  aut  docere,  praeterquam  quod  sernel  Christus  docuit,  et  apostoli  ejus  an- 
nunciaverunt ;  miror  satis  unde  hoc  usurpatum  sit,  ut  contra  evangelicam  et 
apostolicam  disciplinam,  quibusdam  in  locis  aqua  offeratur  in  dominico  calice, 
quae  sola  Christi  sanguinem  non  possit  exprimere.  Cujus  rei  sacramentum, 
nee  in  Psalmis  tacet  Spiritus  sanctus,  faciens  mentionem  dominici  calicis  et  di- 
cens, '  Calix  tuus  inebrians  quam  peroptimus!'  calix  autern  qui  inebriat,  uti- 
que  vino  mixtus  est :  neque  enim  aqua  inebriare  quenquem  potest.  Sic  autern 
calix  dominicus  inebriat,  ut  et  Noe  in  Genesi  vinum  bibens  inebriatus  est. 

j-  Origen  and  Augustine  take  the  same  view  of  Psalms  xxiii.  5,  that  is  taken  by 
Cyprian.  See  Origen,  seventh  homily  on  Leviticus,  and  Augustine,  Tom.  IX. 
253.  These  writers  all  follow  the  Septuagint  in  their  rendering  of  this  verse,  and 
whether  they  are  right  or  wrong  as  to  its  meaning,  their  explanation  of  it  leaves 
no  doubt  as  to  their  views  respecting  the  kind  of  wine  used  at  the  institution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper. 


115 

the  mysteries,  that  is,  of  the  Lord's  Supper.*  The  kind  of 
wine  made  use  of  may  be  inferred  from  his  comments  on  the 
next  verse,  in  which  he  inveighs  most  severely  against  those 
who  rise  from  the  table  drunk,  when  thanks  are  to  be  re- 
turned and  the  hymn  to  be  concluded Km  dv/ffravrai 

fjisra  |X£<5?is,  <5c'ov  eij^a^tdTsTv  xal  sis  u/xvov  tsXsutuv. 

Again,  commenting  on  1  Cor.  xi.  21,  Chrysostom  says 
that  the  apostle  brings  two  charges  against  the  Corinthians; 
one,  that  they  treat  their  supper  with  disrespect  in  not  wait- 
ing for  the  poor  ;  and  the  other,  that  they  eat  insatiably  and 
drink  to  drunkenness :  and  he  adds,  "  therefore  he  said  not, 
one  is  hungry  and  another  is  full,  but  is  drunken,"  &c.t 

We  could  readily  quote  more  from  this  father,  but  the 
above  must  be  sufficient  to  show  what  was  his  opinion  in 
regard  to  the  kind  of  wine  used. 

We  shall  next  adduce  the  testimony  of  Augustine,  who 
says  of  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  that  "  it  inebriates  the  martyrs 
to  the  apprehending  of  heavenly  things,  and  not  vagrants  to 
the  defiling  of  precipices." X 

Again,  writing  in  answer  to  Faustus,  he  says,  "Why 
Faustus  can  suppose  that  we  have  the  like  religion  with  re- 
spect to  the  bread  and  the  cup,  I  know  not ;  since  the  Ma- 
nichaeans  esteem  it  not  religion  but  sacrilege  to  drink  wine,"§ 

Kai  Ti'vog  svSxsv  ovx  vSug  IVisv  dvatfrug,  dXXa  o/vov  ;   aXX-yjv  uipsaiv 
irovr\ga.v  *£o^i£ov  dvaaVwv.  siesiSr,  yag  ski  nvss  iv  Tofg  /jw<Jt»)0io«s  {J<5a<n 

t  II^cjtov  (asv,  on  <ro  SsTtfvov  ccuTwv  UTi^u^ovCr  SsCtspov  5s,  6Vi  yadrp't- 

%ovtui  xai  fis^aourfj xal  sis  ckXiioViav  xal  sis  ^e6r\v  Jgs'gaivov. 

(5io  ou<5s  sfasv,  og  f*£v  itsna  b's  51  xogivvvrai,  d"k\u  [isSCei  x.  <r.  X. 

*  Et  inebrians  ad  capessenda  caelestia  martyres,  non  ad  funestanda  praecipi- 
tia  Circumcelliones.    Tom.  IX.  p.  253. 

§  Cur  autem  arbitretur  Faustus  parem  nobis  esse  religionem  circa  panem  et 


116 

and  that  by  wine  he  did  not  mean  must,  is  evident  from  the 
fact,  that  in  his  book  concerning  Heresies,  he  distinguishes 
between  these  two  things,  and  says  that  the  Manichaeans 
"  do  not  drink  wine,  ....  nor  do  they  sup  any  must,  even 
the  most  recent."* 

Of  the  Aquarians,  Augustine  says,  "  that  they  derive  their 
name  from  the  circumstance,  that  in  the  sacramental  cup, 
they  offer  water,  and  not  that  which  the  ivhole  church  of- 
fer'<?."! 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  these  distinguished  fathers  of  the 
church,  in  the  second,  third  and  fourth  centuries,  respecting 
the  contents  of  the  cup  used  in  the  administration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  by  the  Saviour  himself,  at  the  institution  of 
this  ordinance,  and  by  his  church  after  him.  In  confirma- 
tion of  their  statements,  much  may  be  found  in  other  early 
Christian  writers.  From  the  extracts  given,  it  is  evident, 
that  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Chrysostom 
and  Augustine  teach  that,  in  instituting  the  Eucharist,  our 
Lord  made  use  of  wine  capable  of  producing  intoxication 
if  used  freely  and  not  diluted. 

The  Encratites,  the  Severians,  Manichaeans,*  and  other 

calicem  nescio,  cum  Manichaeis  vinum  gustare  non,  religio,  sed  sacrilegium  est. 
Tom.  VIII.  p.  342. 

*  Nam  et  vinum  non  bibunt, nee  musti  aliquid,  vel  recentissimi, 

sorbent.     Tom.  VIII.  p.  16. 

\  Aquarii  ex  hoc  appellati  sunt,  quod  aquam  offerunt  in  poculo  sacramenti, 
non  illud  quod  omnis  Ecclesia.     Tom.  VIII.  pp.  20,  21. 

4  The  Encratites  held  in  abhorrence  marriage,  the  flesh  of  beasts,  and 
also  wine.  See  Aug.  and  Clemens  Alex.  The  Severians  held  that  the  wine 
was  the  offspring  of  Satan  and  the  earth ;  and  the  Manichaeans,  that  wine 
was  the  poison  of  the  princes  of  darkness.  See  Aug.  VIII.  In  his  History  of  the 
Eucharist,  L'Arroque  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  Encratites  had  also  the  name 


117 

heretics,  mentioned  by  these  writers  as  condemning  the  use 
of  wine,  did  not  maintain  that  the  Saviour  used  must,  and 
that  in  celebrating  their  mysteries,  Christians  should  do  the 
same ;  but  holding  wine  in  abomination,  they  rejected  all 
use  of  the  juice  of  the  grape,  whether  fermented  or  unfer- 
mented  :  and  therefore  it  is  that  the  early  Christian  writers 
speak  only  incidentally  of  the  qualities  of  the  wine  used  in 
the  sacramental  cup  ;  yet  enough  is  said  by  them  to  show 
most  clearly  that  the  wine  was  possessed  of  intoxicating 
qualities. 

It  is  not  till  the  latter  part  of  the  seventh  century,  that  we 
hear  any  thing  of  the  use  of  must  in  the  sacrament  of  the 
supper.  Bingham,  in  his  "Antiquities  of  the  Christian 
Church,"  xv.  3,  after  mentioning  the  different  reasons  as- 
signed for  mixing  water  with  the  wine,  and  among  others 
that  of  Cyprian,  says,  «  And  the  third  Council  of  Braga  re- 
lates Cyprian's  words  correcting  several  abuses  that  were 
crept  into  the  administration  of  this  sacrament ;  as  of  some 
who  offered  milk  instead  of  wine  ;  and  of  others  who  only 
dipped  the  bread  into  the  wine,  and  so  denied  the  people 
their  complement  of  the  sacrament ;  and  others  who  used 
no  other  wine  but  what  they  pressed  out  of  the  grapes  that 
were  then  presented  at  the  Lord's  table.  AH  which  they 
condemn,  and  order  that  nothing  but  bread  and  wine  min- 
gled with  water*  should  be  offered,  according  to  the  deter- 

of  Aquarians,  and  that  they  are  to  be  distinguished  from  the  Aquarians  men- 
tioned by  Cyprian,  who  were  not  heretics,  but  timid  and  ignorant  Christians. 

*  It  is  by  no  means  certain,  that  our  Saviour  used  wine  mixed  with  water 
whence  instituted  the  Eucharist;  but  it  is  certain,  that  it  was  wine  and  not  wa- 
ter, that  he  made  the  symbol  of  his  blood.  Of  mixing  water  with  the  wine,  Vos- 
siussays:  "Est  cnim  hi  se  aSiacpogos,  eoque  Ecclesiae  hodie non  tantum  jus 
illud  habent,  ut  mero  uti  in  Eucharistia  liceat,  sed  vero  postquam  ritus  miscendi 


118 

urination  of  the  ancient  councils."  Add  to  the  foregoing 
statements  the  fact,  not  to  be  denied,  that  all  the  different 
branches  of  the  Christian  church,  however  much  they  differ 
in  other  respects,  are  yet  agreed  as  to  the  use  of  wine,  the 
fermented  juice  of  the  grape,  in  the  celebration  of  the  Eu- 
charist. The  Roman  church,  the  Greek  church,  the  Arme- 
nian, the  Nestorian,  and  all  the  various  branches  of  the  Pro- 
testant church  are,  as  it  regards  this  matter,  of  one  mind.  Is 
it  then  possible,  that  the  whole  church  of  Christ,  from  the 
times  of  the  apostles,  and,  for  what  appears  to  the  contrary, 
from  the  time  of  our  Saviour's  death,  to  the  present  time, 
should  have  agreed  as  to  the  propriety  of  using  the  ferment- 
ed juice  of  the  grape  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Holy  Supper, 
and  yet  their  doing  so  be  contrary  to  the  example  and  will 
of  the  blessed  Redeemer  ?     Let  him  believe  this  who  can. 

The  facts  stated  under  this  head  must  be  sufficient  to  es- 
tablish our  position,  that  in  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist, 
the  Saviour  used  the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape,  had  we 
even  failed  to  show  that  when  wine  is  mentioned  in  scrip- 
ture, it  denotes  an  intoxicating  drink,  or  that  at  the  Paschal 
feast  the  Jews  were  wont  to  use  an  inebriating  wine.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  we  succeeded  in  our  attempt  to  establish 
these  points,  then  we  have  so  much  additional  and  inde- 
pendent testimony  in  support  of  our  views  respecting  the 
kind  of  wine  distributed  by  the  Saviour  to  his  disciples, 
when  he  made  it  the  symbol  of  his  blood.* 

necessarius  haberi  coepit,  prudenter  merum  praeferunt,  ut  suam  in  talibus  liber- 
tatem  ostendant.  Quemadmodum  et  si  meraci  necessitas  statui  coeperit,  melius 
fortasse  ad  mixturam  redeatur."     Theses  Theologicae.  pp.  307-8. 

*  We  find  that,  on  page  108,  we  have  inadvertently  mentioned  Lightfoot  as 
denying  that  the  Saviour  instituted  the  Eucharist  at  the  Passsover.  Lightfoot 
mentions,  Vol.  I.  p.  995,  that  "  some  Christians  have  held  that  Christ  and  his 


119 

VII.  We  are  next  to  examine  the  position,  that  our  Sa- 
viour on  no  occasion  used  fermented  wine,  or  furnished  it 
for  the  use  of  others. 

That  this  position  is  held  by  Messrs.  Grindrod  and  Par- 
sons is  obvious  from  the  whole  tenor  of  their  essays  :  but  as 
we  have,  in  all  our  previous  discussions,  quoted  one  or  more 
passages  to  show  that  they  held  the  opinions  ascribed  to 
them,  we  shall  do  so  now.  At  the  conclusion  of  some  re- 
marks on  this  subject,  Mr.  Grindrod  observes,  "  Hence  arises 
a  strong  argument  against  the  presumption  that  the  Son  of 
God  made  use  of,  or  countenanced  the  use  of  intoxicating 
liquor."  Bacchus,  p.  421.  "  We  may  indeed  rest  assured 
that  so  holy  a  being  as  the  Son  of  God  would  not  partake 
of  any  thing  improper  in  itself,  or  calculated  to  lead  his  fol- 
lowers into  sin."     Bacchus  p.  417. 

In  confident  assertion  Mr.  Parsons  seldom  fails  to  surpass 
Mr.  G.,  and  hence  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  such  lan- 
guage as  this :  "  Those  who  insist  that  the  wine  made  by 
our  Lord  for  the  marriage  of  Cana  was  an  intoxicating 
drink,  appear  to  be  reckless  of  every  thing  but  their  own 
taste  for  modern  wines."     Anti-Bacchus,  p.  273. 

Notwithstanding  the  risk  we  run  of  being  regarded  by  Mr. 
P.  as  reckless  of  every  thing  but  our  own  taste  for  modern 
wines,  we  do  insist  that  the  wine  made  by  our  Lord  was 
intoxicating,  and  we  farther  insist  that  nothing  but  self-con- 
fidence, equal  to  that  displayed  throughout  his  entire  essay, 
could  render  him  blind  to  his  ignorance  of  Jewish  customs, 
and  of  the  practice  of  the  Saviour,  with  respect  to  the  use  of 
wine. 

In  no  one  passage  in  the  gospels  is  their  the  least  intima- 

disciples  kept  their  last  Passover  one  day  before  the  Jews  kept  theirs  ;"  but  this 
is  not  his  own  opinion. 
16 


120 

tion  that  the  term  oj'vos  (wine)  is  to  be  understood  in  a  sense 
different  from  its  common  acceptation  ;  and  we  have  already 
shown  that  it  always  denotes  an  inebriating  drink,  unless 
connected  with  some  term  that  qualifies  its  meaning.  Why 
then  is  the  term  oinos  to  be  understood  in  this  instance  as- 
denoting  an  unintoxicating  liquor  ?  We  agree  with  Mr. 
Parsons  that  ps8v<Jd£><n,  the  Greek  term  rendered  in  our  ver- 
sion "  have  well  drunk,"  does  not  in  this  instance  mean  "  in- 
toxicated," but  merely  "  have  drunk  more  or  less  freely." 
Yet,  at  the  same  time,  we  maintain  that  it  always  denotes 
the  use  of  an  inebriating  liquor  ;  and  that  either  within  the 
bounds  of  sobriety  or  otherwise. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who,  to  say  the  least,  understood 
the  import  of  the  term  o?vos  (wine)  full  as  well  as  Parsons, 
evidently  regarded  the  wine  into  which  the  water  was 
changed  by  our  Saviour  as  intoxicating.  His  words  are, 
"Although  he  converted  water  into  wine,  at  the  marri- 
age, he  did  not  permit  them  to  drink  to  intoxication."* 

For  maintaining  that  our  Saviour  was  wont  to  drink  in- 
toxicating wine,  we  have  not  only  the  authority  of  this  emi- 
nent father,  and  of  Origen,  and  of  Chrysostom,  ail  three 
Greek  writers,  but,  what  is  of  greater  moment,  we  have  the 
authority  of  the  Saviour  himself.  Reproving  the  Jews  for 
their  perverseness,  he  says  to  them  on  one  occasion,  "  For 
John  the  Baptist  came  neither  eating  bread,  nor  drinking 
wine,  and  ye  say,  He  hath  a  devil.  The  Son  of  Man  is 
come  eating  and  drinking,  and  ye  say,  Behold  a  gluttonous 
man  and  a  wine-bibber,  a  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners." 
Luke  vii.  33,  34.     From  this  passage  it  is  evident,  1.  That 

*  E»  yo.g  xou  to  \>5up  oi'vav  £v  <roi£  yajJ.oi£  tfSffoirjxsv,  ovx  zitiTgz-^s  f*e- 
dusiv.  p.  67. 


121 

©ur  Saviour  drank  wine  of  some  description.  2.  That  for 
so  doing  he  was  styled  "a  wine-bibber,"  or,  in  other  words, 
a  drunkard.  That  the  charge  of  his  being  a  wine-bibber 
was  utterly  false,  we  all  believe  ;  but  does  the  fact,  that  this 
charge  was  false,  prove  that  he  never  drank  any  intoxicat- 
ing wine  ?  Would  he  have  been  justly  chargeable  with 
being  a  wine-bibber,  had  he  occasionally  used  an  intoxicat- 
ing wine,  and  that  too,  as  Clemens  Alexandrinus  expresses 
it,  in  a  becoming,  reputable  and  considerate  manner  ?  Is 
every  person  who  drinks  fermented  wine,  in  any  quantity 
however  small,  justly  liable  to  the  charge  of  being  a  wine- 
bibber,  a  lover  of  wine  ?  If  not,  and  if  in  the  case  supposed 
with  respect  to  the  Saviour,  he  would  not  have  rendered 
himself  justly  obnoxious  to  the  charge  made  against  him ; 
then  surely  the  falseness  of  the  charge  is  no  evidence  that 
the  Saviour  never  drank  intoxicating  wine.  And  the  very 
fact  that  he  was  called  a  wine-bibber,  from  drinking  that 
wine  from  which  John  abstained,  renders  it  morally  certain 
that  the  wine  used  by  himself,  and  in  common  use  among 
the  Jews,  was  an  intoxicating  wine,  otherwise  the  charge 
would  have  been  not  only  false,  but  unspeakably  absurd. 
The  absurdity  would  have  been  no  greater,  had  they  styled 
him  a  drunkard  for  drinking  water.  The  Saviour  admits 
the  fact  on  which  the  false  charge  was  founded,  viz.  that  he 
drank  wine  from  which  John  abstained.  For  his  not  drink- 
ing wine,  John  was  charged  with  having  a  devil,  and  for  his 
drinking,  the  Saviour  was  charged  with  intemperance. 
Shall  we  conclude,  because  the  charge  in  the  case  of  John 
was  false,  that  it  was  not  a  fact  that  he  abstained  from  wine  ? 
as  Mr.  P.,  in  the  case  of  the  Saviour,  infers  that  it  was  not 
a  fact  that  our  Saviour  ever  used  intoxicating  wine,  because 
he  was  falsely  charged  with  being  a  wine-bibber.     If  the 


122 

falseness  of  the  charge  in  the  one  case  is  evidence  of  the 
falseness  of  the  fact  upon  which  the  charge  is  founded,  why 
not  in  the  other  case  also  ? 

Upon  what  principle  of  interpretation  are  we  to  limit  the 
drinking,  on  the  part  of  Christ,  to  the  drinking  of  the  unfer- 
mented  and  unintoxicating  juice  of  the  grape  ?  He  made 
use  of  a  drink  from  which  John  abstained  :  if  then  we  as- 
certain what  kind  of  wine  John  did  not  drink,  we  at  the 
same  time  ascertain  what  kind  of  wine  the  Saviour  did 
drink.  Can  there  be  any  doubt  as  to  what  kind  of  wine  it 
was  that  John  did  not  drink  ?  If  there  be,  it  must,  we  pre- 
sume, be  removed  by  reading  what  is  said  in  Luke  i.  15, 
"  For  he  (John)  shall  be  great  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  and 
shall  drink  neither  wine  nor  strong  drink"  or,  in  other 
words,  he  shall  drink  no  intoxicating  drink  whatever. 

Mr.  Grindrod  assumes  as  a  fact,  that  the  use  of  such 
wine  is  inconsistent  with  the  holiness  of  the  Saviour's  char- 
acter, and  with  the  rules  which,  as  Son  of  God,  he  laid 
down  in  the  scriptures  for  the  government  of  prophets,  priests 
and  kings  :  and  thence,  and  also  from  his  submitting  to  the 
rites  and  customs  of  the  Jews,  very  conclusively  infers,  that 
"  these  things  are  a  strong  argument  against  the  presumption 
that  the  Son  of  God  made  use  of,  or  countenanced  the  use 
of  intoxicating  wine."  When  he  establishes  his  several 
premises,  we  shall  grant  his  conclusions. 

After  proving  that  our  Saviour  used  fermented  wine  in 
instituting  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  may  seem 
superfluous  to  discuss  the  points  considered  above.  But  our 
doing  so  may  serve  to  show  that  on  other  than  sacramental 
occasions  it  is  lawful  to  use  wine. 

VIII.  The  last  position  of  which  we  proposed  to  speak, 


123 

is  as  follows,  viz.  that  it  is  an  offence  against  God  and 
man  to  affirm  that  the  scriptures  ever  speak  wit h  approba- 
tion of  the  use  of  fermented  wine. 

Quotations  are  hardly  necessary  to  show  that  our  authors 
maintain  this  position.  To  prove  that  the  use  of  intoxicat- 
ing drink  is  a  sin  against  God,  and  is  always  injurious  in  its 
effects  upon  men,  is  the  great  object  of  the  Essays.  And 
speaking  of  the  miracle  at  Cana,  Mr.  Parsons  says, "  He 
wrought  that  miracle  to  show  forth,  or  manifest  his  glory, 
that  his  disciples  might  believe  on  him  ;  but  no  one,  except 
an  infidel  or  drunkard,  ivould  say,  that  his'glo?ywas 
manifested''  in  producing  a  drink  (i.  e.  fermented  wine) 
which  poisoned  his  friends ;  and  the  knowledge  that  he 
did  so,  instead  of  awaking  or  confirming  our  faith  in  him, 
would  be  calculated  to  beget  unbelief"  Anti-Bacchus,  p. 
335.  We  will  not  trust  ourselves  to  comment  on  such  lan- 
guage as  this,*  any  farther  than  to  say,  that  we  have  no  ob- 
jections to  be  classed  with  drunkards  or  infidels  by  any  one 
who  is  capable  of  penning  such  a  sentence.! 

*  In  the  Essay  of  Mr.  Grindrod  we  find  nothing  of  this  character.  Mr.  G. 
never  charges  those  who  differ  with  him  as  to  the  qualities  of  the  wines  used  by 
the  Saviour,  with  being  infidels  or  drunkards.  In  "  Bacchus"  there  is  nothing 
in  the  language  unbecoming  a  Christian  writer.  His  statements  are  often 
inaccurate,  and  his  reasonings  not  seldom  unsound  ;  sometimes  indeed  they  are 
almost  puerile  :  and  if  his  modes  of  interpreting  scripture  were  universally  ap- 
plied in  determining  matters  of  faith  and  praciice,  it  would  be  no  difficult  matter, 
in  our  opinion,  to  establish,  apparently  on  the  authority  of  scripture,  the  most 
pernicious  heresies.  Not  that  we  regard  Mr.  Grindrod,  or  any  of  his  fellow- 
labourers,  in  promoting  total  abstinence  from  all  intoxicating  drinks  as  heretics, 
but  merely  as  adopting,  inadvertently  we  would  believe,  the  modes  of  arguing 
employed  by  heretics  in  supporting  their  preconceived  opinions. 

f  After  the  last  quotation  from  Anti-Bacchus,  no  one  can  be  surprised  at 
meeting  with  the  following :  "  I  have  before  shown  that  at  the  first  sacrament 


124 

If  the  scriptures  forbid  the  moderate  use  of  wine,  we  ac- 
knowledge ourselves  justly  liable  to  the  charge  of  sinning 
against  God  and  our  fellow  men,  in  maintaining  the  senti- 
ments to  which  we  have  given  utterance.  But  if,  on  the 
contrary,  we  have  the  sanction  of  scripture  for  those 
sentiments,  it  is  a  matter  of  small  moment  what  reproach 
we  shall  encounter  for  our  avowal  of  them.  And  whether 
the  views  presented  by  us  are  the  views  of  God's  word,  we 
submit  to  the  judgment  of  our  readers,  merely  requesting 
that,  before  a  decision  be  made,  our  arguments  may  be  calm- 
ly and  carefully  considered. 

It  was  our  purpose,  when  we  began,  to  take  notice  of  sun- 
dry criticisms  of  our  authors,  upon  different  passages  and 
terms  found  in  the  sacred  writings,  which  could  not  with 
convenience  be  made  subjects  of  comment  in  the  above  dis- 
cussions ;  but  the  limits  of  our  Review  admonish  us  that  we 
have  already  trespassed  too  far  upon  its  pages.  And  we 
the  more  readily  waive  farther  comment  upon  particular 
texts  and  terms,  from  the  conviction,  that  if  we  have  made 
good  the  several  points  we  undertook  to  establish,  nothing 
more  is  required  to  show  that  the  views  which  we  have 
been  defending  are  those  of  the  sacred  scriptures. 

In  the  foregoing  discussions  we  have  handled,  as  the  read- 

our  Lord  drank  an  unfermented  wine Surely  we  ought  not  to  change 

the  cup  of  the  Lord  into  the  cup  of  devils."  This  observation  involves  a  eharge 
against  the  church  of  Christ,  from  the  age  of  the  apostles  to  the  present  time,  of 
participating  in  the  cup  of  devils.  We  mean  not  to  represent  Mr.  Parsons  as 
designedly  preferring  such  a  charge  against  the  body  of  Christ,  but  as  employing 
language  which  of  necessity  involves  it.  Into  such  extravagance  will  fanaticism 
and  ignorance  carry  a  man,  especially  if  confident  of  his  superior  knowledge  and 
learning. 


125 

er  will  observe,  our  several  points  separately  and  independ- 
ently of  each  other.  The  same  facts  indeed  are  sometimes 
cited  in  support  of  different  positions,  but  the  arguments 
themselves  are  distinct.  If  therefore  we  have  proved  each 
of  the  following  propositions — 1.  That  the  wine  in  common 
use  among  the  ancient  Romans,  Greeks,  and  Hebrews,  was 
fermented — 2.  That  in  Palestine  the  wine  was  not  only  fer- 
mented, but  strong  and  intoxicating — 3.  That  the  term  shek- 
har,  "  strong  drink,"  always  denotes  an  inebriating  drink — 
4.  That  intoxicating  drinks  were  permitted  at  the  Jewish 
feasts — 5.  That  fermented  wine  was,  and  is  yet  used,  at  the 
Jewish  Passover — 6.  That  in  instituting  the  Eucharist,  the 
Saviour  used  the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape — and  7.  That 
our  Lord,  on  other  occasions  than  the  one  just  mentioned, 
used  such  wine,  and  provided  it  for  others — the  whole  of 
these  propositions  combined  must  furnish  an  irrefragable  ar- 
gument that  the  scriptures  do  not  condemn  the  moderate 
and  temperate  use  of  wine  and  other  drinks  which,  when 
taken  in  excess,  produce  intoxication. 

We  cannot,  however,  conclude  without  an  expression  of  our 
earnest  desire,  that  no  one  will  pervert  our  remarks  to  his  own 
injury  or  the  injury  of  others.  The  apostle  Paul  tells  us  of 
some  in  his  day,  who  turned  the  grace  of  God  into  licentious- 
ness, and  who  hesitated  not  to  say,  "  Let  us  continue  in  sin, 
that  grace  may  abound."  The  conduct  of  these  men  fur- 
nished no  reason  to  the  mind  of  the  apostle  for  his  omitting 
to  preach  the  doctrine  of  free  grace  ;  nor  can  the  circum- 
stance that  some  will  pervert  the  truth,  be  deemed  a  suffi- 
cient reason  for  a  suppression  of  the  truth  in  regard  to  any 
matter  of  faith  or  practice.  If  any  one  will  use  to  excess 
intoxicating  drink,  because  the  scripture  does  not  condemn 
the  temperate  use  of  such  drink,  he  wilfully  perverts  the 


126 

truth  of  God,  and  he  must  expect  to  reap  the  fruit  of  his  do- 
ing :  viz.  wretchedness  in  this  world,  and  eternal  misery  in 
the  world  to  come. 

So  far  from  being  designed  to  afford  a  pretext  for  the  free 
and  unreserved  use  of  inebriating  drinks,  our  remarks,  if  fairly 
and  impartially  considered,  will  be  found  not  to  have  had 
for  their  object  the  encouragement  of  even  the  temperate 
use  of  them.  We  have  endeavoured  not  to  lose  sight  of  the 
fact,  that  though  the  use  was  lawful,  it  might  nevertheless, 
in  certain  circumstances,  be  altogether  inexpedient,  and 
therefore  wrong.  Whether  there  is  any  thing  in  the  present 
condition  of  our  own  country,  or  of  the  world  at  large,  that 
calls,  at  this  time,  for  entire  abstinence  from  every  species  of 
intoxicating  drink,  is  a  question  for  serious  and  prayerful 
inquiry.  It  is  a  question  of  expediency  for  every  one  to 
determine  for  himself:  and  for  his  decision  he  is  respon- 
sible to  his  God  and  Judge,  and  to  him  alone.  "  To  his 
own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth."  It  would  occasion 
us  no  regret,  if  every  one  should  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
it  is  his  duty  to  abstain  from  all  use  of  intoxicating  drinks ; 
unless  he  should  be  led  to  entertain  scruples  in  regard  to  the 
lawfulness  of  using  wine  at  the  table  of  our  Lord.  Had 
this  subject  been  left  untouched,  and  had  no  rude  hand  been 
laid  on  the  memorials  of  our  Saviour's  death,  we  should 
probably  have  taken  no  part  in  the  discussions  respecting 
the  lawfulness  or  unlawfulness  of  using  inebriating  drink, 
content  to  let  every  one  adopt  that  view  of  the  subject  which 
he  deemed  most  in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God. 

The  wonderful  success  which  at  this  very  time  attends 
the  temperance  enterprise,  calls  for  the  most  sincere  and  de- 
vout expressions  of  gratitude  to  the  author  of  all  good  :  and 
while  we  contend  for  our  own  liberty  and  that  of  others  in 


127 

matters  of  meats  and  drinks,  we  mean  not  to  insist  upon  the 
expediency  of  using  that  liberty.  We  feel  not  the  least  dif- 
ficulty in  adopting  as  our  own  the  words  of  the  apostle  :  "  It 
is  good  neither  to  eat  flesh  nor  to  drink  wine,  nor  any  thing 
whereby  thy  brother  stumbleth,  or  is  offended,  or  is  made 
weak."  And  again,  "  If  meat  make  my  brother  to  offend, 
I  will  eat  no  meat  while  the  world  standeth." 


17 


APPENDIX 


In  annexing  this  appendix  to  the  foregoing  pages,  we  have 
it  in  view  to  examine  sundry  criticisms  of  our  authors,  which 
could  not  readily  be  made  subjects  of  remark  in  our  article  as 
prepared  for  the  Princeton  Review.  The  proposed  examina- 
tion we  do  not  regard  as  of  any  importance  in  establishing  the 
several  propositions  maintained  by  us ;  yet  it  may  serve  to 
elucidate  the  meaning  of  some  passages  in  the  sacred  writings, 
the  true  import  of  which  has  been  misapprehended  by  Mr. 
Grindrod,  Mr.  Parsons,  and  others. 

A  text  much  misunderstood  and  perverted  is  Proverbs 
xxxi.  4,  "  It  is  not  for  kings,  0  Lemuel,  it  is  not  for  kings 
to  drink  wine,  nor  for  princes  strong  drink."  The  obvious 
meaning  of  this  passage,  viz.  that  it  is  improper  for  kings  and 
princes  to  indulge  constantly  and  freely  in  the  use  of  intoxica- 
ting drink,  Mr.  Parsons  regards  as  a  perversion  of  the  truth  ; 
and  yet  it  is  easy  to  show  that  this  passage  contains  no  such 
command  as  he,  Mr.  G.  and  others  imagine.  The  Hebrew 
verb  signifying  to  drink  has  the  same  extent  and  variety  of 
meaning  that  the  English  verb  has,  and  they  both  denote  not 
only  the  act  of  drinking,  but  also  drinking  to  excess.  What 
is  more  common  in  conversation  than  to  designate  a  drunkard 
by  saying  of  him,  'he  drinks?'  And  that  the  Hebrew  term 
also  denotes  drinking  to  excess,  is  evident  from  the  expression 
in  Psalms  lxix.  12, "  1  was  the  song  of  the  drunkards,"  in  He- 


129 

brew,  "  of  the  drinkers  of  strong  drink,"  as  in  the  margin  of 
our  English  Bibles. 

But  this  verse,  Proverbs  xxxi.  4,  no  more  enjoins  upon 
kings  to  abstain  altogether  from  wine,  than  the  preceding  verse 
requires  them  to  abstain  from  marriage  ;  and  in  fact  it  has  less 
the  form  of  a  command,  than  when  in  verse  third  it  is  said 
"  Give  not  thy  strength  unto  women,  nor  thy  ways  to  that 
which  destroy eth  kings." 

Mr.  Parsons'  witticisms  respecting  the  commands  "  Thou 
shalt  not  kill,"  "  Thou  shaltnot  steal,"  are  very  poorly  applied 
by  him  in  the  present  instance.  He  conceits  that  if  the  expres- 
sion "  it  is  not  for  kings  to  drink  Avine"  signifies  that  it  is  ill 
suited  to  their  station  and  to  the  proper  discharge  of  their  du- 
ties to  indulge  freely  in  the  use  of  wine,  then  "  thou  shalt  not 
kill,"  "thou  shalt  not  steal,"  must  mean  thou  shalt  not  slay 
and  defraud  except  with  moderation.  It  will  be  time  enough 
to  take  this  ground  when  he  has  shown  that  "  to  kill"  and 
"  to  steal"  ever  signify  to  do  acts,  some  innocent,  and  others 
sinful ;  as  in  the  case  of  the  verb  "  to  drink,"  which  in  some 
instances  means  merely  "  to  swallow  liquids,"  "  to  quench 
thirst,"  and  in  others  to  drink  to  excess. 

Another  text  also  misapprehended  is  Proverbs  xxiii.  31,  32, 
"  Look  not  upon  wine  when  it  is  red,  when  it  giveth  its  co- 
lour in  the  cup,  when  it  moveth  itself  aright.  At  the  last  it 
biteth  like  a  serpent  and  stingeth  like  an  adder."  If  those 
who  conceit  that  the  word  "  look"  in  this  passage  is  used  in 
the  sense  of  "  simply  directing  the  eye  to  an  object,"  had  taken 
the  pains  to  compare  the  passage  with  the  two  preceding 
verses,  they  would  have  seen  that  its  true  meaning  is,  let  not 
thine  eyes  be  fixed  upon  wine  with  admiration  of  its  red  and 
sparkling  colour,  and  of  its  sprightliness,  lest  thou  thirst  inor- 
dinately for  it.  «  Who  hath  wo  ?  who  hath  sorrow  ?  who 
hath  contentions  ?  who  hath  babblings  ?  who  hath  wounds  ? 


130 

who  hath  redness  of  eyes  ?  They  that  tarry  long  at  the 
wine,  they  that  go  to  seek  mixed  wine.  Look  not  thou  on 
wine  when  it  is  red,"  &c. 

When  our  Saviour  said,  "  Whosoever  looketh  on  a  woman 
to  Inst  after  her,  hath  committed  adultery  with  her  already  in 
his  heart,"  did  he  mean  that  it  was  sinful  to  look  at  a  woman; 
or  is  it  only  the  lustful  looking  that  he  condemns  ?  So  in  the 
passage  we  have  been  considering,  does  the  sacred  writer  for- 
bid all  looking  at  wine,  or  the  continued  and  lustful  looking 
upon  it  ?  A  looking  that  is  attended  with  an  excessive  indul- 
gence, and  followed  with  all  the  evils  mentioned. 

Farther,  these  very  qualities  of  the  wine  described  in  this 
passage  are  spoken  of  in  other  passages  as  indicative  of  the  ex- 
cellence of  the  wine.  For  proof,  compare  this  passage  with 
Genesis  xlix.  11,  "He  washed  his  garments  in  wine,  and 
iiis  clothes  in  the  blood  of  grapes,"  mentioned  among  the  bles- 
sings pronounced  by  Jacob  on  Judah  :  also  with  Canticles  vii. 
9,  "  And  the  roof  of  my  mouth,  like  the  best  wine,  for  my  be- 
loved, that  gocth  down  sweetly"  this  expression,  "  that  goeth 
down  sweetly,"  being  in  the  original  the  same  as  that  in  Pro- 
verbs xxiii.  21,  rendered  "  that  moveth  itself  aright,"  with  the 
exception,  that  in  the  one  text  the  future  form  of  the  verb  is 
used,  and  in  the  other  the  present  participle.  The  expression 
"  giveth  its  colour  in  the  cup"  is  indicative  of  its  sparkling ;  like 
to  the  irradiating  of  the  eye,  the  word  \y_  rendered  colour,  being 
the  Hebrew  term  for  eye. 

In  this  way,  from  want  of  attention  to  the  connexion,  or 
from  overlooking  the  qualifying  terms  or  expressions  in  the 
several  texts  ;  many  other  passages  in  the  scripture  are  often 
cited  as  condemning  altogether  the  use  of  wine  and  other  strong 
drinks,  when  it  is  only  the  excessive  use  of  them  that  is  con- 
demned, or  the  use  of  them  under  peculiar  circumstances. 
There  is  not  a  single  passage  in  the  Bible  which  shows  that  the 


131 

use  of  wine  was  ever  prohibited  except  to  the  Nazarite  du- 
ring the  time  of  his  vow,  to  the  priests  while  engaged  at  the 
altar,  to  Samson  and  his  mother,  and  to  John  the  Baptist. 
The  temperate  use  of  wine  is  no  where  in  scripture  forbidden 
to  kings  or  prophets.  Samuel  indeed  abstained  altogether 
from  the  use  of  wine ;  not  because  he  was  a  prophet  or  a 
judge,  but  because  he  became  a  Nazarite  by  the  vow  of  his 
mother.  Mr.  Parsons  either  disregards  the  context,  or  over- 
looks the  very  pith  of  the  passages  which  he  cites,  and  adverts 
not  to  the  fact  that  the  disapprobation  expressed  in  them  re- 
fers to  acts  indicative  of  too  great  fondness  for  such  drink,  and 
not  to  the  mere  use  of  it. 

This  we  have  shown  to  be  the  case  in  the  passages  just 
cited  :  and  Isaiah  v.  11,  furnishes  another  instance,  "Wo  unto 
them  that  rise  up  early  in  the  morning,  that  they  may  follow 
strong  drink ;  that  continue  until  night,  till  wine  inflame 
them."  This  passage,  so  expressive  of  an  inordinate  thirst 
after  intoxicating  drink,  and  the  following  verses,  descriptive 
of  the  dreadful  consequences  of  this  thirst,  are  quoted  to  show 
the  supposed  sin  and  folly  of  all  use,  however  moderate,  of 
wine  and  other  inebriating  drink.  With  what  propriety  let 
the  reader  judge. 

Leviticus  x.  9,  "  Do  not  drink  wine  nor  strong  drink,  thou 
nor  thy  sons  with  thee,  when  ye  go  into  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation,  lest  ye  die,  it  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever  through- 
out your  generations,"  is  quoted  by  Mr.  Parsons  as  requiring 
total  abstinence  from  intoxicating  drinks,  although  the  very 
words  accompanying  the  command  show  as  clearly  as  any 
thing  can  do,  that  the  prohibition  was  limited  to  the  time 
during  which  the  priests  were  discharging  the  duties  of  their 
office.  Mr.  Grindrod  admits  this  to  be  the  case,  and  yet, 
strange  to  say,  one  of  his  reasons  for  maintaining  that  the  Sa- 
viour never  drank  any  wine  is  that  the  Saviour  was  a  priest. 


132 

This  might  be  conclusive  as  to  his  not  drinking,  when  employ- 
ed in  the  duties  of  the  priest's  office,  had  he  belonged  to  the  Le- 
vitical  Priesthood.  But  our  Saviour,  though  the  High  Priest  of 
his  people,  never  discharged  any  of  the  duties  of  that  priesthood. 

Having  explained  the  import  of  this  passage  on  pages  66,  84, 
we  shall  make  no  farther  comment  upon  it,  but  merely  cite  the 
exposition  of  this  law  as  given  in  the  Mishna,  "  The  priests  of 
the  weekly  guard  are  permitted  to  drink  wine  in  the  night  time, 
but  not  in  the  day.  To  the  men  of  the  house  of  the  father  it 
is  prohibited  by  night  and  day."     Tract  on  Fasts.* 

Romans  xiv.  "  But  if  thy  brother  be  grieved  with  thy  meat, 
thou  walkest  not  charitably.  Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat 
for  whom  Christ  died,"  and  1  Corinthians  viii.  13,  "If  meat 
make  my  brother  to  offend,  I  will  eat  no  meat  while  the  world 
standeth,  lest  I  make  my  brother  to  offend,"  are  two  passages 
not  unfrequently  quoted  in  discussions  respecting  the  lawful- 
ness of  using  wine  :  the  import  of  which  is  not  always  correctly 
apprehended.  The  simple  meaning  of  both  is  that  in  matters  of 
indifference  we  should  not  so  use  our  liberty  as  to  lead  others 
to  sin. 

The  phrase  "  be  grieved"  in  the  first  verse,  does  not  signify 
either  to  be  made  sad  or  to  be  displeased,  but  to  be  hurt  or  in- 
jured, as  appears  from  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  in  which  the 

*  The  priests  were  divided  into  twenty-four  classes,  called  guards,  and  the 
guards  into  seven  smaller  divisions,  each  of  which  was  styled  "house  of  the  fa- 
ther." The  guards  were  required  to  attend  at  the  sanctuary  in  regular  succession, 
and  for  one  week  at  a  time.  Each  division  of  a  guard,  or  house  of  the  father, 
served  one  entire  night  and  day  :  but  during  the  day  this  division  of  priests  was  as- 
sisted by  all  the  priests  of  the  hebdomadal  guard.  And  this  is  the  reason  assigned 
both  by  Maimonides  and  Bartenora,  why  the  priests  of  the  house  of  the  father  were 
not  allowed  the  use  of  wine  either  by  day  or  night,  while  the  other  priests  of  the 
same  weekly  guard  were  permitted  to  drink  wine  at  night,  but  not  during  the  day, 
for  then  they  were  employed  in  the  duties  of  their  office. 


133 

phrase  occurs,  "  Destroy  not  him  by  thy  meat ;"  and  by  the 
use  of  the  term  tfxav<kxi£srai  in  verse  21,  rendered  in  our  Eng- 
lish version  "  offended."     And  the  verb  "  to  offend"  does  not 
in  these  passages  signify  to  give  offence,  or  to  displease,  but  to 
commit  sin,  in  consequence  of  some  temptation  cast  in  one's 
way,  that  acts  as  a  stumbling  block,  and  causes  one  to  stum- 
ble and  to  violate  his  conscience.     We  are  no  where  taught 
in  scripture  that  we  are  bound  to  abstain  from  acts  that  are 
lawful,  merely  because  they  are  displeasing  to  others.     Our 
Saviour  did  not  condemn  the  conduct  of  his  disciples,  but  on  the 
contrary  defended  it,  when  the  Pharisees  were  indignant  at 
them  for  the  plucking  the  ears  of  corn  and  eating  them  as  they 
passed  through  the  fields  on  the  Sabbath  day.     We  should  in- 
deed avoid  giving  all  unnecessary  occasion  for  dissatisfaction 
on  the  part  of  others,  and  respect  their  prejudices  so  far  as  this 
can  be  done  consistently  with  a  due  regard  to  truth  and  Chris- 
tian liberty  ;  but  we  should  earnestly  resist  all  attempts  to 
make  the  prejudice,  the  ignorance,  or  the  cavilling  spirit  of 
others  a  rule  for  the  regulation  of  our  conduct.     These  remarks 
are  not  suggested  by  any  thing  in  the  writings  of  our  authors ; 
and  with  the  view  given  by  Mr.  Grindrod  of  Rom.  xiv.  14, 
and  1  Cor.  viii.  13,  we  in  general  accord:  yet  knowing  that 
these  texts  are  not  unfrequently  misapprehended,  we  have 
thought  it  proper  to  give  the  above  exposition  of  them. 

Besides  the  texts  usually  adduced  in  support  of  their  opin- 
ions, there  are  others,  the  obvious  meaning  of  which  is  attempt- 
ed to  be  evaded  by  those  who  maintain  that  our  Saviour  and 
his  disciples  never  drank  any  fermented  wine.  Among  these 
are  John  ii.  1-1  l,in  which  is  recorded  the  Saviour's  first  miracle, 
by  which  he  supplied  the  wine  that  was  wanted  for  the  due 
entertainment  of  the  guests  at  the  marriage  in  Cana  of  Galilee. 
This  passage  gives  our  authors  no  little  trouble,  and  they  are 
not  exactly  agreed  as  to  the  mode  of  explaining  it.     Mr.  Grind- 


134 

rod  says,  that  the  phrase  '  well  drunk''  "  cannot  with  any  kind 
of  propriety  be  applied  to  the  persons  then  present ;"  but  Mr. 
Parsons  maintains  the  opposite  of  this  opinion,  and  correctly 
"suggests  that  if  it  be  otherwise,  the  words  '  thou  hast  kept 
the  good  ivine  until  now'  can  have  no  meaning."  The  go- 
vernor of  the  feast,  finding  the  wine  made  by  the  Saviour  to 
be  better  than  that  previously  furnished  to  the  guests,  and  not 
knowing  the  source  from  which  it  was  obtained,  calls  the 
bridegroom,  and  expresses  his  surprise  that,  contrary  to  cus- 
tom, the  best  wine  had  been  kept  till  the  guests  had  "  well 
drunk."  Now  let  us  inquire  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  term 
/xsfluffdutfi,  rendered  "  well  drunk." 

In  the  first  place,  the  root,  of  this  word  is  ps&v,*  the  poetic 
term  for  wine,  pure,  unmingled  wine,  an  intoxicating  liquor ; 
and,  secondly,  the  verb  itself,  unless  figuratively  employed,  al- 
ways implies  the  use  of  an  intoxicating  liquor ;  and  no  in- 
stance to  the  contrary  has  or  can  be  produced.  It  does  not, 
however,  of  necessity,  imply  a  state  of  inebriation  on  the  part 
of  those  to  whom  the  term  is  applied,  but  merely  a  greater 
freedom  than  usual  in  the  use  of  such  drink ;  and  yet  a  use 
not  inconsistent  with  sobriety.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that 
either  eating  or  drinking  to  any  extent  impairs  the  delicate 
sensibility  of  the  organs  of  taste  ;  and  hence  after  guests  have 
indulged  their  appetites  in  any  degree,  even  the  least,  they  are 
incapable  of  discriminating  so  accurately  between  the  flavours 
of  different  wines  or  viands  as  can  be  done  before  such  indul- 
gence ;  and  the  fact  that  the  governor  of  the  feast,  notwith- 
standing he  had  tasted  the  other  wine,  at  once  perceived  the 

*  In  making  this  remark,  we  are  aware  that  Philo  Judaeus  and  Athenaeus  men- 
tion that  some  derive  (xsflusiv,  from  the  free  indulgence  in  wine,  that  in  ancient 
times  was  customary  after  sacrificing,  (X£~a  <ro  £Jsiv  ;  and  this  derivation  also 
would  confirm  our  view  of  the  import  of  /j.s^siv,  especially  as  both  the  writers 
mentioned  speak  of  the  intoxicating  effects  of  the  wine  used  on  these  occasions. 


135 

superiority  of  the  wine  made  by  the  Saviour  to  what  they  had 
already  drunk,  shows  the  excellence  of  that  wine,  the  goodness 
of  which  could  be  observed,  notwithstanding  the  guests  had  al- 
ready partaken  more  or  less  of  the  wine  previously  furnished. 
And  it  is  no  impeachment  of  our  Saviour's  character,  as  our 
authors  imagine,  that  he  produced  for  the  guests  an  additional 
supply  of  wine,  which,  if  used  to  excess,  would  produce  intox- 
ication, but  if  used  with  prudence  and  moderation,  would  serve 
only  to  sustain,  during  the  continuance  of  the  feast,  that  inno- 
cent hilarity,  in  which  they  had  previously  indulged,  and  which 
was  perfectly  consistent  with  sobriety  and  devotional  feelings. 

This  view  of  the  passage,  while  it  does  no  violence  to  the 
import  of  the  different  terms  employed,  presents  an  explana- 
tion of  the  narrative  at  once  simple  and  free  from  all  solid  ob- 
jection :  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  explanation  given  by 
our  authors  serves  rather  to  embarrass  than  to  explain  the  sub- 
ject. 

To  vindicate  the  Saviour's  character  from  false  aspersion,  or 
to  show  that  this  miracle  of  our  Saviour  gives  no  countenance 
to  free  and  unreserved  indulgence  in  the  use  of  intoxicating 
drink,  we  have  no  need  to  resort  to  Mr.  Parsons'  unfounded 
hypothesis,  that  the  term  wine  in  the  scripture  ordinarily  de- 
notes the  unfermented  juice  of  the  grape.  By  taking  the  words 
in  their  plain  and  obvious  meaning,  it  is  perfectly  easy  to  give 
an  explanation  of  the  whole  passage  in  entire  consistency  with 
the  rest  of  God's  word,  which  condemns,  in  the  severest  man- 
ner, all  indulgence  to  drunkenness.  Mr.  Parsons  supposes 
that  if  the  wine  used  by  the  guests  was  intoxicating,  then  the 
use  of  the  term  [j.sduo'dwtfi  (well  drunk)  in  this  connexion  must 
indicate  that  the  guests  were  all  "  drunk,"  and  that  our  Sa- 
viour must  be  regarded  as  countenancing  their  drunkenness, 
by  furnishing  the  means  of  continuing  and  increasing  it.     But 

these  inferences  surely  exist  only  in  the  imagination  of  Mr.  P., 
IS 


136 

there  is  no  foundation  for  them  in  fact.  Mr.  P.  himself  main 
tains,  that  the  verb  rendered  "  well  drunk,"  does  not,  in  this 
instance,  "  mean  to  intoxicate,  but  only  to  drink  freely,  or  to 
be  filled  with  liquor."  In  saying  that  the  Greek  term  means 
only  "  to  drink  freely,  or  to  be  filled  with  liquor,"  he  obvious- 
ly intends  to  convey  the  idea,  that  this  free  drinking,  or  this 
being  filled  with  liquor,  was  perfectly  consistent  with  freedom 
from  excess,  otherwise  his  own  interpretation  would  be  press- 
ed with  the  very  difficulty  which  he  seeks  to  fasten  upon  that 
of  those  who  maintain,  that  the  wine  used  at  the  feast  was  in- 
toxicating, viz.  that  after  the  guests  had  already  been  guilty 
of  excess,  the  Saviour  enabled  them  by  working  a  miracle  to 
go  into  still  greater  excess ;  and  if  there  were  any  excess,  it 
matters  not  whether  it  was  in  the  use  of  fermented  or  unfer- 
mented  wine.  Now  if  the  term  admits  of  the  explanation 
given  by  Mr.  Parsons,*  then  no  possible  exception  can  be  ta- 
ken to  our  explanation  of  the  passage.  We  have  said  that 
while  the  Greek  verb  rendered  "well  drunk"  always  implies 
the  use  of  an  intoxicating  liquor,  and  generally  an  intempe- 
rate use  of  it,  yet  that  in  the  instance  before  us,  it  means  no- 
thing more  than  a  greater  freedom  than  usual  in  the  use  of 
wine  ;  and  yet  a  use  of  it  within  the  bounds  of  sobriety. 

From  the  above  specimens  and  those  mentioned  in  the  arti- 
cle itself,  the  reader  may  readily  judge  what  dependance  can 
be  placed  upon  the  criticisms  of  our  authors,  upon  the  different 

*  Mr.  Grindrod  evidently  inclines  to  the  opinion,  that  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, the  term  (xs^utf^wCi  is  indicative  of  excess  in  the  use  of  wine,  be  it  fer- 
mented or  unfeimented,  and  hence  to  avoid  the  difficulty  above  stated,  he  insists, 
for  the  reason  suggested,  that  the  term  has  no  application  to  the  guests  then 
present.  At  the  same  time,  he  says  that  if  it  be  applicable  to  them,  then  "  it  ne- 
cessarily had  reference  only  to  the  use  of  a  moderate  quantity,  and  not  to  more  than 
was  necessary  for  temperate  persons."  If  it  can  have  this  meaning,  what  becomes 
of  Mr.  Grindrod's  argument  against  the  position  that  the  wine  was  an  intoxicating 


137 

passages  which  have  a  bearing  upon  the  principal  points  under 
discussion.  In  their  criticisms  upon  individual  terms  and 
phrases,  they  are  not  more  happy  than  in  the  exposition  of 
entire  texts  of  scripture,  as  we  shall  now  show. 

"Bishops,  therefore,"  says  Mr.  Grindrod,  "are  prohibited 
indulgence  in  wine."  And  in  confirmation  of  this  remark,  he 
quotes  the  saying  of  the  apostle  that  "  A  bishop  must  be  w 
tfafoivos,  me  paroinos,  not  given  to  wine"  and  adds — " This 
passage  has  in  general  been  understood  to  refer  merely  to  the 
free  use  of  wine.  The  original  word,  however,  from  which 
the  translation  has  been  made  is  derived  from  <xa.ga,  para,  near 
or  by,  and  onto?,  oinos,  wine.  Literally,  a  bishop  must  not  be 
seen  in  company  with  wine,  at  a  wine  banquet,  or  in  other 
words,  as  we  may  reasonably  infer  from  the  nature  of  the  pas- 
sage, partaking  of  wine  as  a  common  beverage  or  means  of 
sensual  gratification"     Bacchus,  p.  409. 

For  this  criticism  he  acknowledges  himself  indebted  to  Pro- 
fessor Stuart,  by  quoting  with  commendation  the  Professor's 
comments  on  this  subject.  With  all  due  deference  to  Mr.  G. 
and  Prof.  S.,  we  must  be  permitted  to  say,  that  in  determining 
the  import  of  a  Greek  term,  we  prefer  to  rely  upon  the  usage 
of  the  Greek  writers,  rather  than  upon  conjectures  derived 
from  an  analysis  of  the  term,  or  a  resolution  of  it  into  its  con- 
stituent parts.  The  fact  that  <7ra£oivo£  is  derived  from  iro^a  and 
olvos,  were  there  no  usage  to  determine  its  meaning  would  be 
no  evidence  that  it  has  the  meaning  assigned  to  it  by  Mr. 
Grindrod;  for  in  composition  iraga.  sometimes  denotes  intense- 
ness,  and  in  this  very  term  ffaeoivos,  it  implies  a  continued  sitting 
at  wine.  And  if  there  are  any  terms  in  Greek,  the  meaning 
of  which  can  with  certainty  be  determined,  *a|oivog  is  one ;  and 
its  meaning  is  accurately  expressed  by  our  English  translators, 
"given  to  wine."  And  that  this  is  the  case,  may  be  seen  by 
consulting  the  authorities  cited  by  Parkhurst  and  Schleusner : 
the  first  of  whom  gives  as  the  meaning  of  wc^oivos,  tippler,  one 


138 

who  sits  lo)ig  at  the  wine,  whether  to  drunkenness  or  not,  and 
gives  as  authority  Lucian,  Timon,  torn.  i.  p.  94 ;  and  the  latter 
defines  it,  "  vinosus,  vinolentus,  in  quem  cadit  vinositatis  culpa 
et  omnium  illorum  vitiorum,  quae  ex  ilia  evenire  solent ;" 
and  cites  in  support  of  his  definition  Chrysostom  andTheophy- 
lact,  Aristophanes,  the  Scholiast  on  Aristophanes,  and  Hesy- 
chius. 

Schleusner  adds,  that  the  noun  vugoma.  and  the  verb  «ra£oivs'w 
have  the  same  extent  of  signification,  and  to  the  authorities 
given  by  him,  may  be  added  Arrian,  Av«g.  AXagavoVou,  iv.  S, 
Xenophon,  Sufjwroir.  vi,,  Aristotle,  n>o€X.  iii.,  and  Philo  Judaeus, 
<J>TTOTPI\  I\OE,  p.  186. 

Neither  Mr.  G.  nor  Professor  Stuart  produces  a  single  au- 
thority for  limiting  the  import  of  the  term  in  the  way  they  do ; 
and  whether  or  not,  as  Prof.  Stuart  supposes,  the  use  of  the 
word  irdpoivos  by  Paul  in  reference  to  bishops,  shows  that  a 
greater  restriction  is  laid  upon  bishops  than  upon  deacons,  who 
are  directed  not  to  be  " addicted  to  much  wine,"  not  "to  be 
enslaved  to  much  wine,"  it  is  evident  that  the  use  of  the  phrase 
\i.r\  fi-a^oivos,  does  not  require  bishops  or  ministers  to  abstain  alto- 
gether from  wine  as  a  beverage."* 

■  NrjpuXios  (or  NijipttXeog-)  and  N-^u  are  terms  used  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  true  import  of  which  is  not  given  by  our  au- 
thors.    They  imagine  that  these  words,  even  when  used  meta- 

*  When  in  the  same  connexion  bishops  are  commanded  not  to  be  given  to 
wine,  and  deacons  not  to  be  given  to  much  wine,  it  is  certainly  fair  to  infer  that 
the  same  kind  of  wine  is  meant  in  both  cases.  And  if  so,  then  if  the  wine  be  not 
intoxicating,  and  if  Mr.  G.'s  explanation  of  the  words  [>-'h  -ttupoivoc;  be  correct, 
bishops  are  not  allowed  to  use  even  the  unfermented,  or  "  healthful  juice  of  the 
grape,"  as  it  is  styled  by  Mr.  G.,  nor  are  they  at  liberty  to  drink  fermented  wine 
diluted  with  water,  which  Mr.  G.  tells  us  was  drunk  by  the  ancient  Christians, 
and  the  use  of  which  he  says  differs  very  little  from  the  use  of  water  itself,  Bac- 
chus, p.  426.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  be  intoxicating,  then  deacons  are  alloiued 
to  drink  intoxicating  wine,  in  moderate  quantities — "  not  given  to  much  wine." 
He  may  choose  which  of  these  he  pleases. 


139 

phorically  to  express  vigilance  or  watchfulness,  imply  entire 
abstinence  from  all  use  of  intoxicating  drink.     And  to  sustain 
them  in  this  opinion,  they  rely  upon  the  etymology  as  given 
by   different  lexicographers,  of  the    verb   vfypw,  viz.  vq  not, 
and  tfi'vw  to  drink.     They  advert,  not  to  the  fact,  that  this  com- 
bination may  denote  nothing  more  than  the  avoiding  of  all 
excess  in  drinking,  and  that  v7J<pw,from  which  witpaXiog  is  derived, 
is  the  opposite  of  ps6Cu  or   fjisdutfxw,  which  ordinarily  implies 
drunkenness  or  the  excessive  use  of  intoxicating  liquor.     The 
terms  vvjpw  and  ^sQm  are  thus  used  in  contrast  with  each  other 
by  the  apostle  Paul,  1  Thess.  vi.  7,  by  Aristotle,  Problem  iii. 
S,  12,  19,  27,  and  by  Philo  Judaeus,  who  in  so  many  words 
says  that  they  are  opposed  to  each  other  xal  ^v  to  ys  v/jpsiv  xal 
to  (Jt,st)Jsiv  svavTia,  IIEPI  *TTOTPriA2  NOE,  and  he    had  pre- 
viously remarked,  that  some  derive  (asWu  from  the  circum- 
stance that  after  sacrificing  (/xsto.  to  ^siv)  it  was  customary  with 
the  ancients  to  indulge  freely  in  the  use  of  wine,  (Mos  %v  Tors 
<ff£oVs£ov  oivoutj&ai) ;  and  he  also  says,  that  olvoZatiat  and  iisdvsiv  do 
not  differ  in  signification,  but  both  signify  a  too  free  use  of 
Wllie,  to,  ts  oivouffdai  xal  to  ju.s^Jsiv  sv,    sxarsgov  Os   "tXsiovos    o'/vou   yp>jo*tv 
$}itpaivsi.     From  this  definition  of  ptdveiv,  it  is  fair  to  infer  that 
V7j<pw,  as  opposed  to  (xsOuu,  according  to  Philo  Judaeus,  implies 
abstinence  from  the  immoderate  use  of  wine.     When  not  op- 
posed to  jAgdww,  it  signifies  to  be  vigilant,  watchful,  or  attentive, 
and  the  adjective  v*j<paXios  is  of  like  import;  and  it  is  thus  used 
whenever  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament.     Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus  inveighing  against  the  immoderate  use  of  wine,  yet 
urging  the  example  of  our  Saviour  as  a  warrant  for  Christians 
drinking  wine,  says,  "  we  (Christians)  being  a  peaceful  race, 
and  feasting  for  enjoyment  and  not  for  injury,  drink  sober 
healths,'"  vvjqjaXious  #tvof*sv  (piXoTyjffi'as,  and  in  this  respect  they  dif- 
fered from  the  barbarous  and  warlike  nations  previously  men- 
tioned, who  were  wont  to  drink  to  excess. 

Mr.  Parsons  gives  as  one  of  the    definitions  assigned  by 


140 

Schleusner  to  the  term  vvjpw,  "abstineo  omnis  potus  inebriantis 
usu,"  and  he  observes  that  "it  is  rather  remarkable  that  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  lexicographer  should  contain  the  very  words 
of  the  tetotal  pledge."  Had  not  Mr.  P.  mutilated  Schleusner's 
definition  of  vycpu,  and  carefully  concealed  the  definition  of  vvjpa- 
X»os,  given  by  this  lexicographer,  the  readers  of  Anti-Bacehus 
would  have  seen,  that  in  the  opinion  of  Schleusner  these  terms 
are,  with  the  strictest  propriety,  applied  to  persons  who  abstain 
from  the  immoderate,  use  of  wine  and  other  intoxicating  li- 
quor. The  sentence,  from  which  Mr.  Parsons  culled  the  words 
quoted  byhim,is  as  follows:  " proprie, sobrius, non ebrius sum, 
abstineo  ab  omni  (Soph.  Oed.  Col.  100,)  aut  immoderato  vini 
et  omnis  potus  inebriantis  usu,  quasi  ex  v>,  et  *iW"  In  the  ear- 
lier editions  of  Schleusner's  Lexicon,  the  words  "omni  (Soph. 
Oed.  Col.  100)  aut"  do  not  occur,  and  the  whole  structure  of 
the  sentence  shows  that  vv;<pw  ordinarily  signifies  abstinence 
from  the  immoderate  use  of  wine  and  other  intoxicating  drink. 

Under  the  head  of  v*;<pw,  Schleusner,  after  giving  its  proper 
signification,  quotes  from  an  ancient  grammarian  the  follow- 
ing expression,  v^cpsi  rig  oW  sxrk  pi&r\g  k<rl  x.  <r.  X.  "  a  person  is 
sober  when  he  is  not  drunk,"  &c.  And  wjtpaXios  he  thus  de- 
fines :  "  1.  Proprie,  sobrius,  ab  immoderato  potu  abstinens,  qui 
vino  et  omni  potu  inebriante  modice  utitur,  a  w,cpu  quod  vide. 
Hesych.  v*)<paXiar  v^ovtss,  p?  nsnuMres.  2.  Metaphorice  ad  ani- 
mura  transfertur  et  significat,  cautum,  vigilantem,  circ&mspec- 
tum,  prudentem  in  munere  suo  administrandi.  Sic  ter  legi- 
tur  in  N.  T." 

What  dependance  is  to  be  placed  upon  the  statements  of  a 
writer  that  can  cite  authorities  in  the  garbled  way  that  Mr. 
Parsons  has  done,  not  in  this  instance  only,  but  in  several 
others  as  before  shown  ? 

We  will  add  no  more,  but  leave  it  to  the  reader  to  decide 
whether  the  opinions  advanced  by  us  are  in  accordance  with 
the  word  of  God. 


CONTENTS 


Introductory  Remarks, Page  1 

The  wine  in  common  use  among  the  ancient  Romans, 

Greeks  and  Hebrews,      .         .         .         .         .         .12 

The  strength  of  the  wines  in  Palestine,  ....       55 

The  import  of  the  phrase  "strong  drink,"       ...       60 

Intoxicating  wines  used  at  the  Jewish  festivals,      .         .       76 

Fermented  wine  used  at  the  Jewish  Passover,        .        .       88 

The  Saviour  used  fermented  wine  in  instituting  the  Eu- 
charist,     107 

The  Saviour  not  only  used  fermented  wine,  but  also  fur- 
nished it  for  the  use  of  others,         .        .        .        .119 

It  is  no  offence  against  God  or  man  to  maintain  that  the 
scriptures  speak  with  approbation  of  the  use  of  fer- 
mented wine, 122 

Appendix, ,  .        .        .     12S 


DATE  DUE 


